Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 10, 2018, 06:24:30 PM
-
And an idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420
-
And an idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420
Was just reading it: lying for Jesus so as to not appear like an intolerant homophobe, which he clearly is.
-
Was just reading it: lying for Jesus so as to not appear like an intolerant homophobe, which he clearly is.
To be fair, not sure it was Jesus he was lying for.
-
To be fair, not sure it was Jesus he was lying for.
True: I'll retract that, he was lying for the benefit of himself and his party (not that he is alone in that regard).
-
Farron is pathetic.
-
And an idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420
He always seemed very weak to me as a leader - very lightweight. And this adds to that view. He has objectionable views but didn't even have the guts to admit to them - that said I don't think anyone really believed his about face during the general election on homosexuality.
-
He always seemed very weak to me as a leader - very lightweight. And this adds to that view. He has objectionable views but didn't even have the guts to admit to them - that said I don't think anyone really believed his about face during the general election on homosexuality.
As a matter of historical interest did the gay vote go left, right or evenly distributed?
-
True: I'll retract that, he was lying for the benefit of himself and his party (not that he is alone in that regard).
He was leaned on by the party bosses. If the Lib Dems had a problem with his views on homosexual sex, they should not have elected him as leader.
-
He was leaned on by the party bosses. If the Lib Dems had a problem with his views on homosexual sex, they should not have elected him as leader.
Perhaps when they elected him as leader they didn't know his true views even if they had asked him and he answered as he did during the election campaign, since we now know that he deliberately lied.
-
In a secular society as opposed to a mildly antichristian society the question "do you think homosexuality is a sin" is irrelevant to any secular process whereas the proper question should be "Do you think homosexuality is criminal" since the former is a theological stance.
-
I do hope Jesus was gay and in a physical relation ship with the disciple it is claimed he loved. If that could be proved to be the case, it would be one in the eye for the those Christians who are anti-gay bigots.
-
I do hope Jesus was gay and in a physical relation ship with the disciple it is claimed he loved. If that could be proved to be the case, it would be one in the eye for the those Christians who are anti-gay bigots.
I think you've been at the Mills and Boon a little too much.
-
"Do you think homosexuality is criminal?" is a meaningless question to ask. It does not matter what anyone thinks homosexuality is not a criminal activity: that is a matter of law, of fact.
Has Tim Farron ever made a secret of his christian views? If not, then was his attitude to homosexuality a matter raised during his party leadership campaign? Again, if not, then why not?
What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control.
-
"Do you think homosexuality is criminal?" is a meaningless question to ask. It does not matter what anyone thinks homosexuality is not a criminal activity: that is a matter of law, of fact.
Has Tim Farron ever made a secret of his christian views? If not, then was his attitude to homosexuality a matter raised during his party leadership campaign? Again, if not, then why not?
What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control.
It is not meaningless at all. The view that something ought to be a crime or not is very significant in the hands of a political party leader. Particularly at a time when extreme views have access to power.
Vis the accession of Darwinian principles into health and social care.
-
What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control.
Ah yes only a Puritanism could give rise to wealthy self righteous people dressing up in black and publicly pontificating on how sexual relations should be conducted. That sort of thing never happens today.
-
I take it that English is not your first language, Vlad.
-
In a secular society as opposed to a mildly antichristian society the question "do you think homosexuality is a sin" is irrelevant to any secular process whereas the proper question should be "Do you think homosexuality is criminal" since the former is a theological stance.
True if his Christian faith plays zero role in his views.
-
I take it that English is not your first language, Vlad.
Of course it is not, he is Transylvanian!
-
My thought is that Tim should have told his priest at confession, rather than "come out" as a liar to the BBC. Or perhaps he takes the RC doctrine of the value of suffering? (and NO I am not being sarcastic)
-
True if his Christian faith plays zero role in his views.
I think Farron stated that he would uphold any legislative protection for the LGBTQ community.
Any further pressing of him on his views on sin and sexuality therefore is just cosmo smallpiecism.
-
My thought is that Tim should have told his priest at confession, rather than "come out" as a liar to the BBC. Or perhaps he takes the RC doctrine of the value of suffering? (and NO I am not being sarcastic)
Farron is not a Catholic, pastors don't do confessions like priests do. ::)
-
My thought is that Tim should have told his priest at confession, rather than "come out" as a liar to the BBC. Or perhaps he takes the RC doctrine of the value of suffering? (and NO I am not being sarcastic)
pedentry
It was Christian Premier Radio
/pendatry
So according to Farran gay sex is a sin, but isn't lying a sin as well? Tim is perhaps gay?
-
Farron is not a Catholic, pastors don't do confessions like priests do. ::)
You are correct, thank you for the correction, I had been told on another board that Farron is RC.
-
pedentry
It was Christian Premier Radio
/pendatry
So according to Farran gay sex is a sin, but isn't lying a sin as well? Tim is perhaps gay?
I think that is extrapolating a bit :-p
-
Of course it is not, he is Transylvanian!
Lol
-
You are correct, thank you for the correction, I had been told on another board that Farron is RC.
He is a protestant of the evangelical ilk.
-
I think Farron stated that he would uphold any legislative protection for the LGBTQ community.
Which effectively equates to him saying he will abide by the law - surely this is the lowest of low bars that anyone expecting to hold public office would need to demonstrate.
Any further pressing of him on his views on sin and sexuality therefore is just cosmo smallpiecism.
No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.
-
"Do you think homosexuality is criminal?" is a meaningless question to ask. It does not matter what anyone thinks homosexuality is not a criminal activity: that is a matter of law, of fact.
Has Tim Farron ever made a secret of his christian views? If not, then was his attitude to homosexuality a matter raised during his party leadership campaign? Again, if not, then why not?
What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control.
I don't find it particularly puzzling why religions from many centuries ago have moral rules about sexual behaviour. My impression is that religions developed to regulate behaviour - that's one of the main reasons they were popular as they provided a form of social control. Social control in areas such as monogamy, marriage and sex outside marriage served a useful purpose once people started bequeathing property.
Also the moral rules presumably were to try to regulate and stabalise society as humans can get violent or somewhat emotionally destructive when their partners are sexually unfaithful. Presumably regulations around who can have sex with whom came about in societies where sex was a big deal emotionally for humans, as well as the rules being a way of trying to control the spread of sexual diseases that would have created fertility issues. A society trying to survive with no welfare state or free health service would have produced rules to limit wastage of resources, especially where they needed men to serve as soldiers to conquer land or defend land and didn't want romantic or sexual complications to interfere with troop discipline.
I agree that Farron should have told the truth about his personal views on sin. He said in an interview that “I take the view that, as a political leader though, my job is not to pontificate on theological matters.”
As an MP he can be judged on his voting record and if people disagreed with the way he voted, then quite rightly he would have lost their political support.
-
Which effectively equates to him saying he will abide by the law - surely this is the lowest of low bars that anyone expecting to hold public office would need to demonstrate.
No. As a politician it is not just a question of upholding the law but the ability and the will to change it.
The law is not based on sin in a secular society. There was no evidence that Farron was going to overturn Steele or any LGBT legislation.
Was your concern about him that he would have been an obstacle to future antichristian laws?
-
No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.
Now you have gone OTT. Just because you may not like Farron's views on homosexual sex, he has never suggested that he would want to break the law.
-
No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.
You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.
There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?
-
No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.
You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.
There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?
-
Now you have gone OTT. Just because you may not like Farron's views on homosexual sex, he has never suggested that he would want to break the law.
I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.
-
The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.
-
The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.
Yes I will go along with that.
-
You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.
There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?
Because parties aren't just about their stated policies, but about the values of their leaders - how often are we told that elections are won and lost on the credibility of a leader.
In my opinion someone who openly holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is not fit for public office - even more so when this person also claimed credibility as leader of a party with 'Liberal' in its name.
-
I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.
I am not Vlad.
My point is that you seemed to be implying that if anybody deviates from your views as to "racism" and "sexism" then the same trumps (no I don't mean him) any opinions that they may hold on any other issues.
-
I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.
Views on what is a sin are irrelevant to any secular process. A secular society does not recognise sin but crime.
-
Views on what is a sin are irrelevant to any secular process. A secular society does not recognise sin but crime.
Irrelevant - if someone believed that black people were inferior to white people - or that women were less intelligent than men would that be irrelevant to fitness to hold public office, regardless of the fact that 'secular' society does not recognise either of those views as a crime of itself.
-
The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.
How refreshing. Unfortunately I'm not holding my breath until there is a slew of similar confession across the world of politics.
To be fair though Tim is well and truly out of it. I look forward to a future theology from him worked around his practical experience as a politician.
I'm particularly interested in any experience of religious persecution from the supposedly right on.
-
I am not Vlad.
My point is that you seemed to be implying that if anybody deviates from your views as to "racism" and "sexism" then the same trumps (no I don't mean him) any opinions that they may hold on any other issues.
Yup that just about sums it up - anyone who openly (and proudly) holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is, in my opinion, unfit for public office regardless of how 'nice' their other views might be.
And it isn't just my view - society has determined, via legislation and adherence to basic human rights, that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable. There may be no 'crime' unless acted upon but that doesn't mean that someone holding those views is OK and dandy for public office - they aren't.
-
The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.
No - I disagree - there are two issues here. Both his views and also his willingness to lie and deceive the public as to those views make him unfit for public office. Had he not lied he would still be unfit for public office in my opinion, and actually I would doubt very much that, had he been open about his views, that the membership of the LibDems would have voted him in as leader.
-
- society has determined, via legislation
My point entirely.
-
Yup that just about sums it up - anyone who openly (and proudly) holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is, in my opinion, unfit for public office regardless of how 'nice' their other views might be.
And it isn't just my view - society has determined, via legislation and adherence to basic human rights, that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable. There may be no 'crime' unless acted upon but that doesn't mean that someone holding those views is OK and dandy for public office - they aren't.
It is not "society", if everything was left to "society" then we would have all issues in limbo. What has happened is that our law makers acted on their own initiative.
So too did Uncle Joe's legislators, as did Ceaucescu's legislators. And so do President Fart's lawmakers.
-
No - I disagree - there are two issues here. Both his views and also his willingness to lie and deceive the public as to those views make him unfit for public office. Had he not lied he would still be unfit for public office in my opinion, and actually I would doubt very much that, had he been open about his views, that the membership of the LibDems would have voted him in as leader.
There are indeed two separate issues here.
The first is his views, and that he clearly thinks homosexual sex is wrong, and had he been honest regarding this would have allowed the electorate to take this into account, and since he was a party leader then his personal views had greater significance on how his party was percieved, which is presumably why he lied since his views may well have been a factor in the electoral performance of his party.
The second is that he lied, and that he held the views he did may well have been germane in his becoming leader in the first place had they been known, and of course those voting for his party may well have revised their decision had he been honest.
My view is that he is twice damned; for both his abhorrent homophobic views and them lying about them. I wonder how he voted in the SSM legislation - does anyone know?
-
Because parties aren't just about their stated policies, but about the values of their leaders - how often are we told that elections are won and lost on the credibility of a leader.
In my opinion someone who openly holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is not fit for public office - even more so when this person also claimed credibility as leader of a party with 'Liberal' in its name.
Ok but the complicated bit is that while you might consider a view as racist, sexist or homophobic, another voter might not consider it such.
Clearly Farron lying about his views was a mistake politically and also morally wrong - but his political mistake doesn't mean much - there would be no one left in politics if being caught out lying because of political expediency meant the end of your political career. And lying as a moral wrong just means from a religious perspective he has committed a sin - his view is that everyone is a sinner, including him, so he presumably wrestled with his conscience about how to make amends for this sin and decided to tell the truth.
I'm guessing Farron was a coward - maybe because of pressure from within his party to not let the party down when they had a chance to win seats at the 2017 election. Post-election and post-resignation as leader he has decided to go all Jacob Rees-Mogg and state his personal beliefs. Let's see how that works for him politically - if he gets voted out as an MP at the next election.
-
There are indeed two separate issues here.
The first is his views, and that he clearly thinks homosexual sex is wrong, and had he been honest regarding this would have allowed the electorate to take this into account, and since he was a party leader then his personal views had greater significance on how his party was percieved, which is presumably why he lied since his views may well have been a factor in the electoral performance of his party.
The second is that he lied, and that he held the views he did may well have been germane in his becoming leader in the first place had they been known, and of course those voting for his party may well have revised their decision had he been honest.
My view is that he is twice damned; for both his abhorrent homophobic views and them lying about them. I wonder how he voted in the SSM legislation - does anyone know?
I don't think he would have been voted leader if he stated his true belief. Maybe nobody in the party asked - which was stupid of them.
He voted for SSM and in the final vote he abstained.
-
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10876/caitlin-logan-tim-farron-anti-gay-or-anti-abortion-and-does-it-really-matter
-
Who knows what's true anymore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennie-rigg/tim-farron-lgbt-record_b_16095906.html
-
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10876/caitlin-logan-tim-farron-anti-gay-or-anti-abortion-and-does-it-really-matter
I am anti abortion & what you might think about it does not matter, 'cos being anti abortion ain't yet illegal.
And YES I would stand up in public & say the same despite the thuggery of the pro abortion mob.
-
I am anti abortion & what you might think about it does not matter, 'cos being anti abortion ain't yet illegal.
And YES I would stand up in public & say the same despite the thuggery of the pro abortion mob.
Didn't say it was illegal to be against abortion, and I don't think it should be illegal to be against abortion.
And then you go off on a little tantrum about people who disagree with you.
-
Irrelevant - if someone believed that black people were inferior to white people - or that women were less intelligent than men would that be irrelevant to fitness to hold public office, regardless of the fact that 'secular' society does not recognise either of those views as a crime of itself.
Beliefs should not be illegal.
Who is the most abhorrent. The person who seeks to penalise beliefs or the person who holds abhorrent views but acts in accordance with democracy and the law?
-
Didn't say it was illegal to be against abortion, and I don't think it should be illegal to be against abortion.
And then you go off on a little tantrum about people who disagree with you.
As opposed to you, who seems to think that the default position is the opposite to mine?
-
I am anti abortion & what you might think about it does not matter, 'cos being anti abortion ain't yet illegal.
And YES I would stand up in public & say the same despite the thuggery of the pro abortion mob.
Far better to abort a pregnancy in the early stages than bring an unwanted child into the world. Until men are able to get pregnant it must always be the woman's choice.
-
He is a protestant of the evangelical ilk.
I guessed that.
He now comes over as being quite weak.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was asked his views on homosexuality/gay marriage and he said he has beliefs and lives his life accordingly but accepts that others believe differently & would never impose his onto them, nor does he judge anyone else's lifestyle, it's not his job to do so. That closed the subject. Mr Farron would have done well to take a leaf out of Moggy's book. However evangelicals are different, they do try to tell others how to live their lives.
-
I guessed that.
He now comes over as being quite weak.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was asked his views on homosexuality/gay marriage and he said he has beliefs and lives his life accordingly but accepts that others believe differently & would never impose his onto them, nor does he judge anyone else's lifestyle, it's not his job to do so. That closed the subject. Mr Farron would have done well to take a leaf out of Moggy's book. However evangelicals are different, they do try to tell others how to live their lives.
Hmmmmmmm! I don't think that just applies to evangelicals.
-
As opposed to you, who seems to think that the default position is the opposite to mine?
Where have I stated anything about something being a default position?
-
Where have I stated anything about something being a default position?
You, and Prof D, are using the exact same tactics as has Militant Tendency/ RSL/The Socialist Party (and no I am not suggesting that either of you are members of the same).
It is not a matter of "Liberal Democracy", rather it is a matter of "Democratic Centralism", in that those who win a majority of votes in a small caucus consider the same to represent the majority view. Now anybody who thinks that abortion is morally wrong is held to be a "bigoted minority"?. It ain't that simple.
-
You, and Prof D, are using the exact same tactics as has Militant Tendency/ RSL/The Socialist Party (and no I am not suggesting that either of you are members of the same).
It is not a matter of "Liberal Democracy", rather it is a matter of "Democratic Centralism", in that those who win a majority of votes in a small caucus consider the same to represent the majority view. Now anybody who thinks that abortion is morally wrong is held to be a "bigoted minority"?. It ain't that simple.
I haven't said anything about you being a bigot either.
-
As opposed to you, who seems to think that the default position is the opposite to mine?
I haven't said anything about abortion.
However society has determined that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable, in accordance with our basic human rights obligations and within the law and regulations that run within society and its organisations from top to bottom. So yes, opposing sexism, racism and homophobia is the default position within the UK.
-
Given that the terms "sexism", "racism" and "homophobia" have as many definitions as there are people - hence the clashes between some feminists and some trans people and the confusion caused by people who are alleged to be Islamophobic also being accused of being racist - the default position is pretty meaningless IMO.
What one person classes as racism is not racism to another - hence people were frustrated that the police were not doing enough to halt the Rotherham child groomers due to fears about accusations of racism.
And the default position is to regulate behaviour not beliefs. I personally don't care if individual policemen hold racist beliefs - I care how they act when they police. I've met racist people - their views don't really bother me and have little impact on my life but if they discriminated against me and broke the law then, if I thought it was worth the effort, I would pursue legal action.
This regulation of behaviour has little moral worth unless it occurs through due process of law with a fair hearing for all sides, not trial by social media. The default position of liberalism is that people are free to hold beliefs you might not like and you are free to withdraw your political support or friendship if you don't like their beliefs, but I think it's a person's actions that determine their fitness for public office.
-
I think the whole idea of the default position is a red herring here. And I don't think it is as easy to seperate beliefs and actions as if they are unrelated.
Despite some posts alleging thst people were looking to outlaw beliefs, I haven't seen anyone suggest that . The points are that someone's beliefs have to in some way influence their actions. To take the case of JRM as mentioned earlier, iy's one of his beliefs that he shouldn't seek to legislate on homiseciality in line with his religious beliefs.
Further if someone is say sexist, then unless they never say anything sexist, you wob't know. But if they do happen to fill their twitter feed with such comments, then that is actions as well as belief. And it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for me to judge then as someone I wouldn't want to see in certain positions .
-
Despite some posts alleging thst people were looking to outlaw beliefs, I haven't seen anyone suggest that . The points are that someone's beliefs have to in some way influence their actions. To take the case of JRM as mentioned earlier, iy's one of his beliefs that he shouldn't seek to legislate on homiseciality in line with his religious beliefs.
Further if someone is say sexist, then unless they never say anything sexist, you wob't know. But if they do happen to fill their twitter feed with such comments, then that is actions as well as belief. And it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for me to judge then as someone I wouldn't want to see in certain positions .
That is correct - if I express a racist, homophobic or sexist belief via a comment then that is an act, a behaviour so to speak. And it is the same regardless of whether it is verbal or via other forms of communication, e.g. social media. And in the public realm we don't, as a society, accept this. So were I to make a racist comment to a colleague at work I should fully expect to be reprimanded over this and the severity of the action will depend on the nature of the comment, but reprimanded I will be. And that is right.
And we are talking about society in a public sense, its institutions, its accepted norms demonstrated via law, regulations etc within those institutions of society including the workplace. Hence my comment that anyone who holds beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic is not fit to hold public office - and of course you would only know of those beliefs if they are expressed in some way.
-
And the default position is to regulate behaviour not beliefs. I personally don't care if individual policemen hold racist beliefs - I care how they act when they police. I've met racist people - their views don't really bother me and have little impact on my life but if they discriminated against me and broke the law then, if I thought it was worth the effort, I would pursue legal action.
So you have no concerns if a police officer, when on duty, clearly expresses racist views even if there isn't any evidence that they actually actively discriminated agains someone on the basis of their race? If that is the case I am horrified - in my view it is not acceptable for a police officer to express racist views in the course of their duties, and indeed the police feel the same too as any police officer expressing racist beliefs on duty would be likely to be reprimanded.
-
Talking of being racist, this is breaking news.
"Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" Mr Trump reportedly asked lawmakers during talks on an immigration deal. :o
-
So you have no concerns if a police officer, when on duty, clearly expresses racist views even if there isn't any evidence that they actually actively discriminated agains someone on the basis of their race? If that is the case I am horrified - in my view it is not acceptable for a police officer to express racist views in the course of their duties, and indeed the police feel the same too as any police officer expressing racist beliefs on duty would be likely to be reprimanded.
If expressing their views makes them less effective in their jobs and they need the good will of minorities to police then obviously they should not express their views and put people’s safety at risk. If racism such as profiling or stop and search is effective - my priority would be people’s safety. My husband regularly gets searched at Heathrow when going to the US as he is a Muslim. I don’t know if the policy is effective - we just shrug it off as we just want to get on the plane and get to our destination.
My view is that a lot of people express racist views in the course of their duties, including ethic minorities - I hear it all the time especially from ethnic minorities when white people aren’t around. In fact we all sometimes indulge in racist jokes, sometimes at our own race, sometimes at other races. I think it would be racist of me to want to punish white people for expressing their racist views while ethnic minorities around me are free to express their casual racism. I’d stick to regulating behaviour. If their views are aggressively expressed and causing a person to feel under threat or if informants aren’t coming forward because of racism that’s an issue that needs to be tackled. In a perfect world no one would hold racist beliefs but in our imperfect world I’d tackle the worst effects of racism and regulate behaviour.
At school there are kids who don’t like Muslim - my daughter just chooses not be friends with them as she doesn’t have time / can’t be bothered to find out if their dislike is based on misconceptions.
-
If expressing their views makes them less effective in their jobs ...
I cannot see how accepting the expression of racist views by officers in the course of their duty cannot make the police service less effective. Don't you remember the whole issue of institutional racism that came out after the murder of Stephen Lawrence - once you accept the expression of racist views within an organisation you, in effect condone and legitimate racism in all forms.
My view is that a lot of people express racist views in the course of their duties, including ethic minorities - I hear it all the time especially from ethnic minorities when white people aren’t around.
Where did I suggest that racist views were restricted to white people - I didn't. And wherever it arises it is just as wrong.
In fact we all sometimes indulge in racist jokes, sometimes at our own race, sometimes at other races.
Really? Speak for yourself - clearly you have different, and lower standards and interact with different people. I don't indulge in racist jokes, nor do the vast majority of people I know, and those that do rapidly recognise the unacceptability of their views.
I think it would be racist of me to want to punish white people for expressing their racist views while ethnic minorities around me are free to express their casual racism.
I agree, and where did I ever suggest otherwise.
I’d stick to regulating behaviour. If their views are aggressively expressed and causing a person to feel under threat
Expressing racist views is behaviour and I don't think it makes a major difference whether it is casual racism or aggressive - neither is acceptable, and people engaging in society, within its institution including workplaces have a right not to be subject to the expression of racist views that demean them, regardless of whether it is justified as 'just banter'. It isn't acceptable.
At school there are kids who don’t like Muslim - my daughter just chooses not be friends with them as she doesn’t have time / can’t be bothered to find out if their dislike is based on misconceptions.
The school, of course, cannot force pupils to be friend with, or play with others. However the school should come down like a ton of bricks on any pupil expressing racist views within the jurisdiction of the school. If they don't they are grossly failing in their basic duty of care to all their pupils.
-
Prof D
Clearly you and I have different views on the type of societies we want to live in and the type of company we want to hang out with. Which takes me back to the original issue I had with you saying there is a default position that society holds. There isn’t one society or one default position.
-
I think this ‘default position’ argument doesn’t work - society constantly shifts as to what is its ‘default’. But clearly the LibDems have a well established position on equality and rights, in common with the other main parties except UKIP. To attempt to run a party while holding beliefs contrary to what the party stands for is hypocritical. The problem isn’t his beliefs, but his lies.
-
Prof D
Clearly you and I have different views on the type of societies we want to live in and the type of company we want to hang out with. Which takes me back to the original issue I had with you saying there is a default position that society holds. There isn’t one society or one default position.
There is a default in the public sphere as enshrined in our laws and the procedures within our institutions including the workplace.
So we were talking about the police - without doubt a police officer expressing racist views while on duty would be breaching police rules and would be likely (quite rightly) to be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Society, via its institutions has determined that this type of behaviour is not acceptable within its public institutions.
So it isn't a case of 'I say potato, you say potato' (pronounced differently) - society has determined that there is an accepted pronunciation, so to speak. In other words society has determined that the expression of racist views within its institutions isn't acceptable. That it still goes on isn't the point - the societal view is that it shouldn't go on.
-
I think this ‘default position’ argument doesn’t work - society constantly shifts as to what is its ‘default’. But clearly the LibDems have a well established position on equality and rights, in common with the other main parties except UKIP. To attempt to run a party while holding beliefs contrary to what the party stands for is hypocritical. The problem isn’t his beliefs, but his lies.
The problem is both his view and his lies. Actually I am more concerned about his views that the lies.
-
The problem is both his view and his lies. Actually I am more concerned about his views that the lies.
I find his beliefs both baffling and abhorrent. But in terms of his political career his lying is the thing. His views are incompatible with mainstream politics in our country and at some point he would either have to lie or get out.
-
Clearly you and I have different views on the type of societies we want to live in
Do you really want to live in a society where it is acceptable for people in public roles to express racist views without sanction or being frowned upon by those institutions and broader society. Blimey!
... and the type of company we want to hang out with.
Actually I'm not largely talking about people I chose to hang around with (there is a choice there and that is relevant)- I am taking about people I am required to hang out with as they are my colleagues in various organisation I either work for or have formal roles with. I don't choose these people anymore than they, by and large, choose me. In every case the notion of casual racist comments expressed within those contexts would be considered totally unacceptable and, frankly, doesn't happen.
-
Beliefs should not be illegal.
We aren't taking about beliefs per se, but about the expression of those beliefs, within a particular context - in this case public office.
In pretty well any employment openly expressing racist views would put you on the wrong side of your employers code of employment and make you liable to disciplinary action. Sure that might be as little as your line manager having a quiet word, but if you failed to take note and continued to express racist views you might be subject to more formal disciplinary action, potentially leading to dismissal.
-
But in terms of his political career his lying is the thing. His views are incompatible with mainstream politics in our country and at some point he would either have to lie or get out.
Yes and no - the point is that had he indicated those beliefs he wouldn't have been likely to have been elected leader of the LibDems. That's my point - he was unfit fr public office due to his beliefs - the lying was a way to try to cover over his unfitness for public office.
-
I find his beliefs both baffling and abhorrent. But in terms of his political career his lying is the thing. His views are incompatible with mainstream politics in our country and at some point he would either have to lie or get out.
I agree: and if he doesn't get out voluntarily I suspect that at some point he will be got out, via the electorate in his constituency expressing their view of his lying.
-
Yes and no - the point is that had he indicated those beliefs he wouldn't have been likely to have been elected leader of the LibDems. That's my point - he was unfit fr public office due to his beliefs - the lying was a way to try to cover over his unfitness for public office.
Again, kind of - he could have been honest and put it to the test - he didn't.
Important to note that this isn't about religious belief in general - Cameron appears to be an Anglican of sorts and also introduced marriage equality, for no reason other than he considered it the right thing to do as far as I can tell.
-
Yes and no - the point is that had he indicated those beliefs he wouldn't have been likely to have been elected leader of the LibDems. That's my point - he was unfit fr public office due to his beliefs - the lying was a way to try to cover over his unfitness for public office.
I don't think that because he thinks active homosexuality is a sin he is 'unfit for public office'. That seens ti me a step to far.
-
I don't think that because he thinks active homosexuality is a sin he is 'unfit for public office'. That seens ti me a step to far.
I think it should have been put to the test. Be open, let the people (his party, the electorate) decide.
I can see that in some forms of public office it is possible to act in a fair and compassionate manner while holding certain beliefs - divorcing the public from the private as it were. We expect it all the time from teachers, doctors, the police, anyone in public service. When it comes to politics, there is a need to vote on legislation and I think it is this more than anything that makes honesty so important. I wouldn't want a politician that lied; equally I wouldn't want one who didn't vote in line with his or her conscience.
-
I think the whole idea of the default position is a red herring here. And I don't think it is as easy to seperate beliefs and actions as if they are unrelated.
Despite some posts alleging thst people were looking to outlaw beliefs, I haven't seen anyone suggest that . The points are that someone's beliefs have to in some way influence their actions. To take the case of JRM as mentioned earlier, iy's one of his beliefs that he shouldn't seek to legislate on homiseciality in line with his religious beliefs.
Further if someone is say sexist, then unless they never say anything sexist, you wob't know. But if they do happen to fill their twitter feed with such comments, then that is actions as well as belief. And it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for me to judge then as someone I wouldn't want to see in certain positions .
I agree it is impossible to separate beliefs and actions in the real world - judges who are supposed to be impartial are influenced by their beliefs and juries who are supposed to consider the evidence impartially are influenced by their beliefs - decisions are a mix of emotion and evidence.
I would say one of the issues that Farron's admission highlights is how much tolerance there is for differing beliefs, given that everyone's beliefs influence their actions to some degree. And the complexity is that what one person finds unacceptably racist another person would not - different people have different tolerances not just for other people's beliefs but also different tolerances for the risk of how those beliefs influence actions.
-
I agree: and if he doesn't get out voluntarily I suspect that at some point he will be got out, via the electorate in his constituency expressing their view of his lying.
I don't think I would be that bothered by the lying - if the person came clean afterwards because their conscience was bothering them, I would give them another chance. I think many people lie. I think many politicians lie - at least this one had a change of heart and told the truth.
The constituency may well decide that his belief is not acceptable to them and do not want him to represent them on other matters unrelated to homosexuality because of his belief on homosexuality - or they may not.
-
I think this ‘default position’ argument doesn’t work - society constantly shifts as to what is its ‘default’. But clearly the LibDems have a well established position on equality and rights, in common with the other main parties except UKIP. To attempt to run a party while holding beliefs contrary to what the party stands for is hypocritical. The problem isn’t his beliefs, but his lies.
I can see some sense in Farron's argument that his theological position is separate from his political position. My theological position is that sex outside marriage is a sin. My real world position is that sex outside marriage happens - and therefore as somewhat of a liberal I would believe it was not my place to judge/ control the behaviour of other people who hold different views on this issue and I would not advocate banning it. I'd be quite surprised if my daughters carried that theological position into the real world - and seriously amazed at their self-restraint given all the freedom and opportunities they would have at university. Same for drinking alcohol - my theological position is that it is a sin - my real world position...see above.
When politicians talk about policy decisions such as banning something they would have to look at real world considerations , not theological positions - for a start if the ban is impossible to police it would be pointless. I think liberals would think that a behaviour has to be causing some serious havoc in society and leading to major health issues and a massive drain on resources for them to even consider banning something - and they would probably still be against it as it would be unenforceable though it may send a message that influences behaviour.
-
Do you really want to live in a society where it is acceptable for people in public roles to express racist views without sanction or being frowned upon by those institutions and broader society. Blimey!
If it's a joke - absolutely. Depends on the situation though - some jokes can be too provocative for me. But clearly I would draw the line at a different place from you, which is fine I think that we have different lines.
Actually I'm not largely talking about people I chose to hang around with (there is a choice there and that is relevant)- I am taking about people I am required to hang out with as they are my colleagues in various organisation I either work for or have formal roles with. I don't choose these people anymore than they, by and large, choose me. In every case the notion of casual racist comments expressed within those contexts would be considered totally unacceptable and, frankly, doesn't happen.
Yes that's true - but again it would depend on what is considered racist - that is not clear cut. I don't consider blacking up or browning up or dressing up as South Asian and adopting a funny accent racist but you might.
-
I agree it is impossible to separate beliefs and actions in the real world - judges who are supposed to be impartial are influenced by their beliefs and juries who are supposed to consider the evidence impartially are influenced by their beliefs - decisions are a mix of emotion and evidence.
I would say one of the issues that Farron's admission highlights is how much tolerance there is for differing beliefs, given that everyone's beliefs influence their actions to some degree. And the complexity is that what one person finds unacceptably racist another person would not - different people have different tolerances not just for other people's beliefs but also different tolerances for the risk of how those beliefs influence actions.
And I agree. I think on this thread there is a different take between whether Prof D and I see what would appear to be Farron's actual beliefs and whether they make him unfit for public office. I doubt I would vote for him precisely because of the risk and given that he is there as leader of the Lib Dems, it would seem an even bigger risk. I think the estimation of the risk is hugely dependent on the job, and further that increases the risk that you already mentioned that they couldn't actually to their job because others would not be able to trust them.
I don't think that all lying is necessarily a bar to all positions but if Fsrron tries a leadership position elsewhere, I would be concerned that he might not be up to it. Not for the simple morality of it but whether someone who did this is suited to that position.
I think some of the reason that Farron's views caused him some trouble here was that he wasn't sure himself about whether it quite fitted with what was right for the leader of the Lib Dems.
-
As a matter of historical interest did the gay vote go left, right or evenly distributed?
i think it went straight up the middle 👺
-
If it's a joke - absolutely. Depends on the situation though - some jokes can be too provocative for me. But clearly I would draw the line at a different place from you, which is fine I think that we have different lines.
And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.
-
And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.
This is actually classic passive aggression employed by abusers of all kinds. Useful gaslighting tool as well.
-
And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.
If people aren't finding it funny I suggest finding a new audience. There are people who will find it funny and people who won't.
If it wasn't meant to be a joke - I guess I would consider if there was any truth in the statement and address what I thought were the inaccuraciesand hopefully have a friendly discussion. My experience is that people make all kinds of generalisations or assumptions, and often appreciate their assumptions being challenged in a non-aggressive way and end up asking a lot of questions they would not have normally asked and end up adopting a different position based on being willing to listen to the answers to their questions or the responses to their points.
I would get offended if people start swearing at me or spitting in my face or threatening me or excluding me.
-
This is actually classic passive aggression employed by abusers of all kinds. Useful gaslighting tool as well.
Exactly - and it is doubly damaging. First the victim is demeaned in the first place and then is made to feel that they are at fault for being upset.
And within an organisation this is where 'institutional' - isms take hold. The classic 'is you want to get on here you have to be able to take the 'banter'' approach which is toxic, making certain groups within the organisation feel marginalised and also it rapidly pervades to those members of the public who interact with those services - effectively that you cannot act in an appropriate professional manner with colleagues how on earth can you with clients. And once this impression becomes set, groups within society begin to lose confidence in that organisation. Hence my earlier comment that:
'I cannot see how accepting the expression of racist views by officers in the course of their duty cannot make the police service less effective.'
Same is true for the expression of sexist and homophobic views by officers.
-
If expressing their views makes them less effective in their jobs and they need the good will of minorities to police then obviously they should not express their views and put people’s safety at risk. If racism such as profiling or stop and search is effective - my priority would be people’s safety. My husband regularly gets searched at Heathrow when going to the US as he is a Muslim. I don’t know if the policy is effective - we just shrug it off as we just want to get on the plane and get to our destination.
My view is that a lot of people express racist views in the course of their duties, including ethic minorities - I hear it all the time especially from ethnic minorities when white people aren’t around. In fact we all sometimes indulge in racist jokes, sometimes at our own race, sometimes at other races. I think it would be racist of me to want to punish white people for expressing their racist views while ethnic minorities around me are free to express their casual racism. I’d stick to regulating behaviour. If their views are aggressively expressed and causing a person to feel under threat or if informants aren’t coming forward because of racism that’s an issue that needs to be tackled. In a perfect world no one would hold racist beliefs but in our imperfect world I’d tackle the worst effects of racism and regulate behaviour.
At school there are kids who don’t like Muslim - my daughter just chooses not be friends with them as she doesn’t have time / can’t be bothered to find out if their dislike is based on misconceptions.
I will put a qualification on your post-which for the most part I agree with.
My kids are no longer "white", thanks to the likes of Frage, and Ukip they are now Anglo Romanian-"mixed race". Racism is not just about colour of skin. And "Ethnic Minority" is about more than "race".
-
If people aren't finding it funny I suggest finding a new audience. There are people who will find it funny and people who won't.
But we are talking about views being expressed within an organisation - e.g. employee, post holder etc either towards colleagues or clients.
Why on earth should someone going to work to earn a living be expected to endure racist, sexist or homophobic comments within that workplace. And that there might be a cabal of colleagues who do find it funny doesn't make it better, quite the reverse, it makes it worse. The point about racist, sexist and homophobic comments is that someone is the butt of the joke - and frankly that isn't funny of you are that person and no-one should be expected to have to endure that abuse. In other contexts we call it bullying.
-
I will put a qualification on your post-which for the most part I agree with.
My kids are no longer "white", thanks to the likes of Frage, and Ukip they are now Anglo Romanian-"mixed race". Racism is not just about colour of skin. And "Ethnic Minority" is about more than "race".
Not sure if they are still at school - but if so they shouldn't be expected to endure derogatory comments, be the butt of joke (or worse) due to their ethnic origin. It isn't funny and it isn't acceptable.
And of course when you accept such attitudes it becomes pervasive as kids learn to replicate what they see. So a school that turns a blind eye to one group of kids victimising another due to their ethnic origin effectively sanctions that victimised group using the same tactic on another group - perhaps kids who might be gay etc. It is a race to the bottom.
-
But we are talking about views being expressed within an organisation - e.g. employee, post holder etc either towards colleagues or clients.
Why on earth should someone going to work to earn a living be expected to endure racist, sexist or homophobic comments within that workplace. And that there might be a cabal of colleagues who do find it funny doesn't make it better, quite the reverse, it makes it worse. The point about racist, sexist and homophobic comments is that someone is the butt of the joke - and frankly that isn't funny of you are that person and no-one should be expected to have to endure that abuse. In other contexts we call it bullying.
How are they being forced to endure the jokes if the person telling the jokes only tells them to people who find it funny i.e. the new audience I spoke of? Which doesn’t include the person who doesn’t find the jokes funny. My experience at work is that some jokes are made to a wide audience and some jokes are made to a select few who share the joker’s sense of humour.
You are aware that at your workplace people (of mixed ethnicity) are probably making what you would consider racist jokes you don’t approve of out of your earshot in order to not offend you and you are none the wiser, right? And many of them don’t consider it racist or find it problematic. That’s why there is no default position on racism. Differently people define racism in different ways. Apparently some millennial find Friends racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic . Other people just find it funny.
-
How are they being forced to endure the jokes if the person telling the jokes only tells them to people who find it funny i.e. the new audience I spoke of? Which doesn’t include the person who doesn’t find the jokes funny. My experience at work is that some jokes are made to a wide audience and some jokes are made to a select few who share the joker’s sense of humour.
Don't be so naive.
Firstly how on earth are you to assess who does and does not find such jokes funny - my experience of such toxic environments (fortunately from many year ago) is that they become bullying, that individuals use such humour as a way to dominate, and often want those who are the butt of the joke to be present as belittling is part of the power game. But of course if you speak out, you will be told that 'it's only a joke' and accused of having no sense of humour. So people often keep quiet despite feeling deeply uncomfortable about the tone of the 'banter'.
But further, how on earth does it help if, for example, you are a woman and although when you are in the room everyone is on their best behaviour, but you know that as soon as you leave someone will make a joke about the size of your breasts as part of the 'banter' with the lads. In a way that is even more isolating than were they made directly to your face, albeit that might be more directly offensive.
Nope the expression of racist, sexist or homophobic comments, regardless of whether couched as 'a joke' or 'banter' has no place in the workplace and a good workplace creates an ethos where it is clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and employees (or clients) feel that ethos so they recognise that the organisation is on their side were such behaviour to arise.
-
Don't be so naive.
Firstly how on earth are you to assess who does and does not find such jokes funny - my experience of such toxic environments (fortunately from many year ago) is that they become bullying, that individuals use such humour as a way to dominate, and often want those who are the butt of the joke to be present as belittling is part of the power game. But of course if you speak out, you will be told that 'it's only a joke' and accused of having no sense of humour. So people often keep quiet despite feeling deeply uncomfortable about the tone of the 'banter'.
But further, how on earth does it help if, for example, you are a woman and although when you are in the room everyone is on their best behaviour, but you know that as soon as you leave someone will make a joke about the size of your breasts as part of the 'banter' with the lads. In a way that is even more isolating than were they made directly to your face, albeit that might be more directly offensive.
Nope the expression of racist, sexist or homophobic comments, regardless of whether couched as 'a joke' or 'banter' has no place in the workplace and a good workplace creates an ethos where it is clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and employees (or clients) feel that ethos so they recognise that the organisation is on their side were such behaviour to arise.
I think you are being naive.
You'll just have to accept that your experience and views do not define reality for everyone else.
My experience is that yes some people want the power of belittling people but most people share jokes with like-minded people who find it funny but who would object if there was discrimination for job opportunities, promotions or if the situation was not a joking matter. You may well have had a different experience but you are naive to deny the reality of alternative experiences.
I have not worked in academia and have no reason to doubt your experiences. I have been part of the British army and worked in investment banking and worked in accountancy and have therefore met a wide range of people. I have met people who said they used to be racist but are less so now, had drinks with them in the pub and enjoyed their company, and they mine.
As for jokes about my breasts - if I think the person was genuinely trying to be funny and not to belittle me or another woman - I could laugh about it, and have done. I am not saying I am infallible so if I got it wrong about their motives then I live and learn.
As we already established I don't think I would want to adopt your world view on this issue and you clearly would not want to adopt mine.
-
My experience is that yes some people want the power of belittling people but most people share jokes with like-minded people who find it funny but who would object if there was discrimination for job opportunities, promotions or if the situation was not a joking matter.
Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).
My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).
I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.
So perhaps it is because your experiences is in sectors that have some of the worst practices that you see this type of behaviour as somehow acceptable and even 'normal'. It isn't acceptable and isn't tolerated in all sorts of organisations that really do demonstrate best practice.
-
Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).
My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).
I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.
So perhaps it is because your experiences is in sectors that have some of the worst practices that you see this type of behaviour as somehow acceptable and even 'normal'. It isn't acceptable and isn't tolerated in all sorts of organisations that really do demonstrate best practice.
who gave you the job of judge and jury?
-
who gave you the job of judge and jury?
No one.
But what I am saying is merely the current accepted legal position in the UK regarding protection in employment. See the link as an example:
https://www.thebalance.com/examples-of-sexual-and-non-sexual-harassment-2060884
So it isn't me being judge and jury, but the actual judges and juries - in other words the law of the land.
-
Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).
Why - is that one of your past times - testing yourself for unconscious bias? What do you find you are biased about? Or is that a requirement in the academic field - regularly check and identify your biases as part of your appraisal process?
My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).
I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.
I have no idea about what you define as overt racism, sexism or homophobia - not that it matters on here as this all seems very subjective and seems to very much revolve around your personal tolerance levels on the issue. Feel free to consign my type of thinking to whatever dustbin you like - as a liberal I don't need you to believe what I believe - and if it makes you feel all warm inside to feel morally superior to me, knock yourself out. Glad to have been of service.
I didn't experience bullying or a lack of diversity in the army - I had a good laugh though. We were informed about rules and practices to deal with bullying so maybe these practices had worked in the areas I experienced, which is why I didn't experience any - only banter, jokes, camaraderie and lovely helpful people who would look out for me.
The middle office areas I worked in in banking did have some banter but also seemed quite diverse - some Asians, some black people, some gay people, quite a few women - lots of jokes aimed primarily at straight, white men but if they liked you and wanted to include you then they'd joke with you too. There were a couple of issues with mild bullying - I sorted my experience of sexism and bullying in a humorous way with an elaborate wind-up - in fact one of the VPs of the bank at my first job called me a "bastard" to my face while laughing as I roped him into the wind-up of the head of my team for mildly bullying me - the VP added that he used to feel sorry for me being the only girl on an all-male team but now he felt sorry for them. I was a bit shocked but it was a nice feeling when he called me a bastard. And I ended up being friends with the head of my team.
As we already established I probably would not want to adopt your world view on this issue and you clearly would not want to adopt mine.
-
No one.
But what I am saying is merely the current accepted legal position in the UK regarding protection in employment. See the link as an example:
https://www.thebalance.com/examples-of-sexual-and-non-sexual-harassment-2060884
So it isn't me being judge and jury, but the actual judges and juries - in other words the law of the land.
I didn't experience a hostile work environment but did experience lots of jokes and banter that as far as I know did not interfere with my success as an employee. Where I did briefly experience a hostile work environment I sorted it with humour.
I agree that harassment and hostile work environments and stopping employees from succeeding or people feeling harmed by jokes is unacceptable. All of these are subjective - work friends who share a similar sense of humour don't feel harassed by the jokes. If people feel harassed by jokes, you generally don't tend to joke with them.
-
Why - is that one of your past times - testing yourself for unconscious bias? What do you find you are biased about? Or is that a requirement in the academic field - regularly check and identify your biases as part of your appraisal process?
I have no idea about what you define as overt racism, sexism or homophobia - not that it matters on here as this all seems very subjective and seems to very much revolve around your personal tolerance levels on the issue. Feel free to consign my type of thinking to whatever dustbin you like - as a liberal I don't need you to believe what I believe - and if it makes you feel all warm inside to feel morally superior to me, knock yourself out. Glad to have been of service.
I didn't experience bullying or a lack of diversity in the army - I had a good laugh though. We were informed about rules and practices to deal with bullying so maybe these practices had worked in the areas I experienced, which is why I didn't experience any - only banter, jokes, camaraderie and lovely helpful people who would look out for me.
The middle office areas I worked in in banking did have some banter but also seemed quite diverse - some Asians, some black people, some gay people, quite a few women - lots of jokes aimed primarily at straight, white men but if they liked you and wanted to include you then they'd joke with you too. There were a couple of issues with mild bullying - I sorted my experience of sexism and bullying in a humorous way with an elaborate wind-up - in fact one of the VPs of the bank at my first job called me a "bastard" to my face while laughing as I roped him into the wind-up of the head of my team for mildly bullying me - the VP added that he used to feel sorry for me being the only girl on an all-male team but now he felt sorry for them. I was a bit shocked but it was a nice feeling when he called me a bastard. And I ended up being friends with the head of my team.
As we already established I probably would not want to adopt your world view on this issue and you clearly would not want to adopt mine.
And are you sure that what you perceived as 'banter' wasn't thought of by others in a much more negative manner.
Just recently a survey revealed that 52% of women in the workplace indicated that they had been on the receiving end of what they felt to be sexual harassment - and in many cases this was portrayed by the perpetrator as 'banter' but was clearly not seen as that by the recipient. Perhaps many of your colleagues felt deeply uncomfortable or even threatened by the workplace environment, but (like most on the receiving end in a toxic or hostile workplace environment) that they couldn't speak out.
No doubt there are plenty of people who though the Harvey Weinstein workplace environment was filled with 'just banter'.
-
There were a couple of issues with mild bullying ...
Dropped that one into the middle of the post didn't you. There shouldn't be any bullying mild or otherwise in the workplace - full stop.
-
Why - is that one of your past times - testing yourself for unconscious bias? What do you find you are biased about? Or is that a requirement in the academic field - regularly check and identify your biases as part of your appraisal process?
You really are off the pace on workplace practice.
Training about and personal assessment of unconscious biased is now extremely common across all sorts of sectors. It is very well embedded in many large public sector organisations, but also in the private sector, including (now) within many major banks.
It is done, firstly, as part of creating a workplace that is welcoming to all, but also to ensure that recruitment practices are both fair and also most effective (to ensure that the best candidate does get the job) and not the candidate who is most like the recruitment panel - which is often the manifestation of unconscious biases.
Go find out about it yourself - it is genuinely interesting and you can run through some online assessments in a matter of minutes. We all have unconscious biases (I do) - indeed on the training I did the leader indicated that over many years and hundreds of assessments he had only found a single person who displayed no unconscious bias at all. The point isn't about whether you have them or not (we all do) but recognising them and ensuring that in practice you don't bias decisions on the basis of those biases.
-
It's interesting to google 'banter or abuse'.
-
And are you sure that what you perceived as 'banter' wasn't thought of by others in a much more negative manner.
Just recently a survey revealed that 52% of women in the workplace indicated that they had been on the receiving end of what they felt to be sexual harassment - and in many cases this was portrayed by the perpetrator as 'banter' but was clearly not seen as that by the recipient. Perhaps many of your colleagues felt deeply uncomfortable or even threatened by the workplace environment, but (like most on the receiving end in a toxic or hostile workplace environment) that they couldn't speak out.
No doubt there are plenty of people who though the Harvey Weinstein workplace environment was filled with 'just banter'.
I am not sure of anything. Neither are you - so pointless question. I don't need to be sure.
If people objected they have to take responsibility for their feelings and report it to HR if they want it to stop. As no one forced them to congregate at that particular spot to share the joke and they could have just sat at their desk and carried on with their work or if they heard a joke they found offensive they could have objected, I assume they were there because they found it funny.
My experience is that people weren't told they should be able to take a joke if they objected to banter - people were considerate and figured out how to moderate their behaviour depending on the feedback from their audience. Those who liked provocative jokes and banter told them to other people who liked provocative jokes and banter.
-
You really are off the pace on workplace practice.
Training about and personal assessment of unconscious biased is now extremely common across all sorts of sectors. It is very well embedded in many large public sector organisations, but also in the private sector, including (now) within many major banks.
It is done, firstly, as part of creating a workplace that is welcoming to all, but also to ensure that recruitment practices are both fair and also most effective (to ensure that the best candidate does get the job) and not the candidate who is most like the recruitment panel - which is often the manifestation of unconscious biases.
Go find out about it yourself - it is genuinely interesting and you can run through some online assessments in a matter of minutes. We all have unconscious biases (I do) - indeed on the training I did the leader indicated that over many years and hundreds of assessments he had only found a single person who displayed no unconscious bias at all. The point isn't about whether you have them or not (we all do) but recognising them and ensuring that in practice you don't bias decisions on the basis of those biases.
jesus !
Perhaps everybody should just stay in bed all day , alone !!!!
-
Dropped that one into the middle of the post didn't you. There shouldn't be any bullying mild or otherwise in the workplace - full stop.
If you meant that I typed the words in the order that they flowed in the narrative, then yes.
I notice you drop lots of things into the middle of your post - well done you for figuring out sentences are placed in paragraphs and can come in different orders.
I agree there shouldn't be bullying - that's why I brought it up and talked about dealing with it. When I found a joke objectionable I dealt with it. That was my experience of banking - if you found a joke objectionable there were ways to make your objection known and deal with it. You may well have had a different experience when you tried to object to a joke - fair enough.
-
jesus !
Perhaps everybody should just stay in bed all day , alone !!!!
What are you on about. Nope this is about trying to ensure that you have the most effective recruitment and workplace practice. Making sure that members of your workforce don't feel threatened or harassed at work, that they feel able to do the best possible job - that they don't simply leave because they find the workplace atmosphere toxic (they wont necessarily tell you, but you'll simply find high quality employees simply voting with their feet).
What's wrong with trying to ensure that.
-
If you meant that I typed the words in the order that they flowed in the narrative, then yes.
I notice you drop lots of things into the middle of your post - well done you for figuring out sentences are placed in paragraphs and can come in different orders.
I agree there shouldn't be bullying - that's why I brought it up and talked about dealing with it. When I found a joke objectionable I dealt with it. That was my experience of banking - if you found a joke objectionable there were ways to make your objection known and deal with it. You may well have had a different experience when you tried to object to a joke - fair enough.
So you've have accepted that there was bullying in your workplace (albeit mild, but none is acceptable as you indicate). You have also indicated that there were unwelcome comments, joke etc, that you found 'objectionable' but that it was left to you as the person on the end of the objectionable comments to have to deal with the issue. That doesn't sound like a healthy workplace at all - rather the organisational culture should be such that everyone understands the boundaries of what is acceptable and not, and that it is managers and leaders who should ensure the culture is maintained.
Now I am assuming that you weren't the line manager of the people making the 'objectionable' comments (correct me if I am wrong). But if that is the case then it should have been their line manager quietly taking them to one side to indicate that those kinds of comment or joke aren't really acceptable. If should never be left to you as that puts you in a very awkward position and in many cases, particularly for young, junior (and female) employees they wont feel able to 'deal with it' particularly if the comment come from a more senior person as is the case more often than not.
-
What are you on about. Nope this is about trying to ensure that you have the most effective recruitment and workplace practice. Making sure that members of your workforce don't feel threatened or harassed at work, that they feel able to do the best possible job - that they don't simply leave because they find the workplace atmosphere toxic (they wont necessarily tell you, but you'll simply find high quality employees simply voting with their feet).
What's wrong with trying to ensure that.
And again you use the smug "democratic centralist" approach.
-
You really are off the pace on workplace practice.
Training about and personal assessment of unconscious biased is now extremely common across all sorts of sectors. It is very well embedded in many large public sector organisations, but also in the private sector, including (now) within many major banks.
It is done, firstly, as part of creating a workplace that is welcoming to all, but also to ensure that recruitment practices are both fair and also most effective (to ensure that the best candidate does get the job) and not the candidate who is most like the recruitment panel - which is often the manifestation of unconscious biases.
Go find out about it yourself - it is genuinely interesting and you can run through some online assessments in a matter of minutes. We all have unconscious biases (I do) - indeed on the training I did the leader indicated that over many years and hundreds of assessments he had only found a single person who displayed no unconscious bias at all. The point isn't about whether you have them or not (we all do) but recognising them and ensuring that in practice you don't bias decisions on the basis of those biases.
I am sure it is interesting but now I am no longer in the corporate sector and work for my own small company, my priorities are mostly cash flow. I doubt that identifying my biases is going to make any difference to clients paying fees on time or is going to reduce the rates bill or influence the costs of other overheads.
What I notice is most welcoming to new employees is money, professional training and work-life balance. And yes people still tell provocative jokes to people they think share a similar sense of humour.
-
So you've have accepted that there was bullying in your workplace (albeit mild, but none is acceptable as you indicate). You have also indicated that there were unwelcome comments, joke etc, that you found 'objectionable' but that it was left to you as the person on the end of the objectionable comments to have to deal with the issue. That doesn't sound like a healthy workplace at all - rather the organisational culture should be such that everyone understands the boundaries of what is acceptable and not, and that it is managers and leaders who should ensure the culture is maintained.
No, what I found objectionable was when the team leader dropped his pants in the office and mooned to my video camera, which someone else on the team was using to film him, while I was out of the office, and then left it back on my desk. So I didn't discover the mooning until I went home and played the tape. They were all giggling and laughing like schoolboys - probably the fact that it was after lunch and they had been drinking and it was summer was one of the reasons they were stupid enough to do something like that in the office and film it and give me the evidence. I thought that was a joke too far.
Some of the jokes and comments were stupid but I didn't feel harassed. Some were actually quite clever and pretty funny.
I found the environment pretty healthy - I learned a lot and had a laugh at work most of the time and even enjoyed the learning experience of busy and stressful days.
Now I am assuming that you weren't the line manager of the people making the 'objectionable' comments (correct me if I am wrong). But if that is the case then it should have been their line manager quietly taking them to one side to indicate that those kinds of comment or joke aren't really acceptable. If should never be left to you as that puts you in a very awkward position and in many cases, particularly for young, junior (and female) employees they wont feel able to 'deal with it' particularly if the comment come from a more senior person as is the case more often than not.
Oh please - that would have been unhealthy for me though I accept your option might have been healthy for you. I felt empowered by dealing with it myself - in fact it was one of the highlights of that job and it still gives me a feel-good factor when I think about it - especaially Dale laughing and calling me a bastard. I was young and junior - it was my first job after university.
But then I tend to enjoy more high-risk situations that challenge me - and find those better for my mental health and happiness. The increasingly low-risk culture that seems to be taking over is becoming suffocating and depressing.
-
And again you use the smug "democratic centralist" approach.
Eh - what on earth are you on about.
Quite the reverse - appropriate workplace practice is most likely to support, nurture and develop those least obviously from what you might describe as the 'elite'.
Without appropriate practices people have a great tendency (overt and via unconscious bias) to think people like them just happen to be better. So in effect a perpetuation of male, pale (white) and stale (middle aged). Add to that the chum culture and you have a classic elite mix whereby the top jobs (and promotion and opportunities) end up disproportionately from those of establishment backgrounds - e.g. private schools, Oxbridge etc.
Good employment practice mitigates against this - or do you somehow think that trying to ensure that the best are most appropriately identified and nurtured regardless of their background (rather than a nice little merry-go-round of white, male, middle class, private school dominance) is somehow smug "democratic centralist".
-
Oh please - that would have been unhealthy for me though I accept your option might have been healthy for you. I felt empowered by dealing with it myself
And what about all those who don't feel confident enough or 'empowered' to deal with it - which as survey after survey shows is the vast majority. Are they supposed to suffer in silence because management practice was weak and institutional culture poor.
-
No, what I found objectionable was when the team leader dropped his pants in the office and mooned to my video camera, which someone else on the team was using to film him, while I was out of the office, and then left it back on my desk. So I didn't discover the mooning until I went home and played the tape. They were all giggling and laughing like schoolboys - probably the fact that it was after lunch and they had been drinking and it was summer was one of the reasons they were stupid enough to do something like that in the office and film it and give me the evidence. I thought that was a joke too far.
It gets worse and worse.
You try to portray your work environment as fine, then admit there was bullying, then that you found aspects of behaviour objectionably, and then you reveal this.
What you have reported is not acceptable - it is way, way beyond acceptable - this isn't even borderline, I would have thought this would easily be construed as unlawful sexual harassment and you shouldn't have had to put up with it, and certainly should have been made to deal with this yourself.
As this person appeared to be your superior, he should have been hauled into his superior straight away and disciplined. This would be the 'quiet word' type of action as far as I'm concerned, this at the very least should be written warning at the least.
-
And what about all those who don't feel confident enough or 'empowered' to deal with it - which as survey after survey shows is the vast majority. Are they supposed to suffer in silence because management practice was weak and institutional culture poor.
I am just pointing out that you shouldn't generalise based on the stereotype of how you think female junior employees react and how they need rescuing.
My experience is that the jokes were aimed at women who they thought could handle the banter and who would let them know if they crossed a line. From what I remember they were polite and well-behaved to people who didn't give them hell back and put them down in return. Of course there is an issue if they misjudge someone - like they did with me and the video camera. All the guys on my team found that funny - but they accepted that I didn't and because I got my revenge they seemed happy to modify their behaviour without holding a grudge.
-
It gets worse and worse.
You try to portray your work environment as fine, then admit there was bullying, then that you found aspects of behaviour objectionably, and then you reveal this.
Where did I portray my workplace as fine? You seem to have formed your own interpretations of what I wrote - is that an example of unconscious bias?
What you have reported is not acceptable - it is way, way beyond acceptable - this isn't even borderline, I would have thought this would easily be construed as unlawful sexual harassment and you shouldn't have had to put up with it, and certainly should have been made to deal with this yourself.
As this person appeared to be your superior, he should have been hauled into his superior straight away and disciplined. This would be the 'quiet word' type of action as far as I'm concerned, this at the very least should be written warning at the least.
I don't need you to tell me it's not acceptable - that's why I dealt with it. I first made him sweat by pretending I was going to HR with the video tape evidence he had so helpfully provided me of it happening in the office; and then I made a public request in front of my team leader and the rest of the team for a private meeting with a VP and then I told the VP I wanted to make my team leader think I wanted disciplinary action and I needed his help for it to be convincing so my team leader would be bricking it. That's why the VP laughed and called me a bastard and said he felt sorry for them. But he loved it and got my manager involved as he said there needed to be 2 people at the mock hearing to make it realistic and they had a sealed envelope on the table and made him think he was about to be fired. They loved it.
My team leader was confiding his anxiety before the 'disciplinary hearing' to another team leader who was training me and who was happy to report the conversations to me and have a laugh about it. It was actually pretty entertaining. My team leader came by my desk after the fake hearing and said he was impressed. And then we were friends. He did get me back in some way - a joke that had me panicking for about 15 minutes. All ended well so it was good for my health.
Probably wouldn't be good for yours though - I doubt you would have appreciated the funny side.
-
I haven't said anything about abortion.
However society has determined that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable, in accordance with our basic human rights obligations and within the law and regulations that run within society and its organisations from top to bottom. So yes, opposing sexism, racism and homophobia is the default position within the UK.
But society has also introduced the idea of thought crime, and pulling rights and obligations out of it's arse in very undemocratic ways vis thought police tendencies.
Also there is the scourge of infantilising, part of which is part of society's deficit model. In other words guilty until proved innocent or incompetent and completely incapable of segregating thought from practice.
In this case it is not trusting the public to dispatch at the ballot box and banning instead vis the hysterical rubbish I read about Farron that 'people like him have no place in Britain'. What the fuck could that possibly mean. Please tell us.
-
Can you give us the link to something saying that 'people like him have no place in Britain'?
-
It gets worse and worse.
You try to portray your work environment as fine, then admit there was bullying, then that you found aspects of behaviour objectionably, and then you reveal this.
What you have reported is not acceptable - it is way, way beyond acceptable - this isn't even borderline, I would have thought this would easily be construed as unlawful sexual harassment and you shouldn't have had to put up with it, and certainly should have been made to deal with this yourself.
As this person appeared to be your superior, he should have been hauled into his superior straight away and disciplined. This would be the 'quiet word' type of action as far as I'm concerned, this at the very least should be written warning at the least.
its just aswell you were not in my team (when I had a p proper job )you or someone with a similar attitude would not have made it to the end of the week !
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/12/to-sin-or-not-to-sin-an-open-letter-to-tim-farron/
-
Can you give us the link to something saying that 'people like him have no place in Britain'?
Metro letters section.
-
Metro letters section.
Seriously?
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/12/to-sin-or-not-to-sin-an-open-letter-to-tim-farron/
but the biggest irony is , naughty boy Farron is gay ,so I've heard !
-
its just aswell you were not in my team (when I had a p proper job )you or someone with a similar attitude would not have made it to the end of the week !
On what basis wouldn't I have made it to the end of the week. Would you have sacked me (and if so on what basis) or would you have bullied/harassed me out?
-
On what basis wouldn't I have made it to the end of the week. Would you have sacked me (and if so on what basis) or would you have bullied/harassed me out?
the last one probably (just kidding) See what I did there?
-
Actually joking asside it was a very sexist ,racist macho environment and that was just the women .
I'm not making that up !!!
-
On what basis wouldn't I have made it to the end of the week. Would you have sacked me (and if so on what basis) or would you have bullied/harassed me out?
I think it's more likely you would have moved on to work in an environment and a team that better suited your outlook.
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/12/to-sin-or-not-to-sin-an-open-letter-to-tim-farron/
Not really getting all the self-pity and hurt and the need for other people's approval. Maybe i was born wrong.
-
Not really getting all the self-pity and hurt and the need for other people's approval. Maybe i was born wrong.
TBH I don't give a flying fuck about Tim but Dim's views.
The self-pity and angst as you put it seems to come from Gay Christians trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.
It's not only your Mam and Dad that fucks you up.
-
There are clearly as many interpretations of this strand of Christianity as there are Christians, since there are Christians who stop at “Jesus loves us and we’re all sinners and only God can judge” without tacking on any additional bits about being gay or sodomy being an extra bad sin, deserving a seat at the back of the bus or is being born wrong.
The same way there are all kinds of Muslim messages coming at me every day expressing judgement. Not surprisingly I hang out with people who try to follow the only God can judge line, and don’t let all the Islamic broadcasts and speeches where people are judging my behaviour affect me - other than I might try to shoot down their arguments either in my head or out loud.
I can understand parents having a huge impact on us - we’re forced to live with them every day Which gives them lots of opportunities to mess with your head. In the UK I cannot understand why gay Christians don’t hang out with accepting religious people instead of tying themselves up in unnecessary knots because of someone else’s beliefs. Given people express beliefs all the time, it just seems masochistic to me to not ignore people saying stuff they believe if taking on their beliefs makes yyou feel bad.
It would be like me taking seriously Prof D’s belief that he has superior behavioural standards to me
and still coming back to the forum to feel inferior and unaccepted. Makes more sense to disregard Prof D’s beliefs then I don’t feel inferior. That’s the bit where I think gay Christians don’t really help themselves if they give so much of their power to other people, who are free to hold whatever beliefs they want.
-
I don't need you to tell me it's not acceptable - that's why I dealt with it. I first made him sweat by pretending I was going to HR with the video tape evidence he had so helpfully provided me of it happening in the office; and then I made a public request in front of my team leader and the rest of the team for a private meeting with a VP and then I told the VP I wanted to make my team leader think I wanted disciplinary action and I needed his help for it to be convincing so my team leader would be bricking it. That's why the VP laughed and called me a bastard and said he felt sorry for them. But he loved it and got my manager involved as he said there needed to be 2 people at the mock hearing to make it realistic and they had a sealed envelope on the table and made him think he was about to be fired. They loved it.
My team leader was confiding his anxiety before the 'disciplinary hearing' to another team leader who was training me and who was happy to report the conversations to me and have a laugh about it. It was actually pretty entertaining. My team leader came by my desk after the fake hearing and said he was impressed. And then we were friends. He did get me back in some way - a joke that had me panicking for about 15 minutes. All ended well so it was good for my health.
So effectively this organisations approach to dealing with a (pretty clear) accusation of bullying and harassment, rather than engage in an appropriate disciplinary procedure, was to sanction and engage in bullying and harassment of the accused in return. A kind of tit for tat bullying and harassment - astonishing.
This kind of behaviour should only be seen in the school playground (actually it shouldn't be seen there either) it should have no place whatsoever in a professional workplace.
All I can hop is that this happened a very, vey long time ago and that the organisation in question has subsequently recognised that it needs to operate appropriate professional employment practice - including, at the very least, complying with the law.
-
I am just pointing out that you shouldn't generalise based on the stereotype of how you think female junior employees react and how they need rescuing.
I am not generalising - I am basing my view on evidence. Firstly that many employees suffer harassment, that a much greater proportion of women than men do and that being female, junior and young within an organisations increases both the likelihood of suffering harassment but also the likelihood that the victim doesn't feel able to report it.
So in you world all seems to be OK because you were tough enough to deal with the bullying and harassment you received. That is generalising - what if you were not. What if you felt that you might lose your job if you spoke out, or simply felt scared. What then. Mt view is that the organisational culture should be such that it is absolutely clear that this type of behaviour is unacceptable, so it doesn't happen in the first place. If it doesn't happen neither you nor someone less able to speak out is disadvantaged. In your world unless you are tough enough you are effectively screwed. That's wrong.
-
So effectively this organisations approach to dealing with a (pretty clear) accusation of bullying and harassment, rather than engage in an appropriate disciplinary procedure, was to sanction and engage in bullying and harassment of the accused in return. A kind of tit for tat bullying and harassment - astonishing.
This kind of behaviour should only be seen in the school playground (actually it shouldn't be seen there either) it should have no place whatsoever in a professional workplace.
All I can hop is that this happened a very, vey long time ago and that the organisation in question has subsequently recognised that it needs to operate appropriate professional employment practice - including, at the very least, complying with the law.
God I hope not - it would be so much more boring to go to work. Your ideal workplace sounds like a place where fun goes to die.
No - humour is still alive - my daughter just told me the funniest joke told to her by a Muslim friend - there was a priest, a rabbi and an imam on a plane that was crashing with children on-board and not enough parachutes.....
ETA - actually it seems she was told the joke by a 30-something doctor who was at a party swapping jokes with her 50-something uncle.
-
I am not generalising - I am basing my view on evidence. Firstly that many employees suffer harassment, that a much greater proportion of women than men do and that being female, junior and young within an organisations increases both the likelihood of suffering harassment but also the likelihood that the victim doesn't feel able to report it.
So in you world all seems to be OK because you were tough enough to deal with the bullying and harassment you received. That is generalising - what if you were not. What if you felt that you might lose your job if you spoke out, or simply felt scared. What then. Mt view is that the organisational culture should be such that it is absolutely clear that this type of behaviour is unacceptable, so it doesn't happen in the first place. If it doesn't happen neither you nor someone less able to speak out is disadvantaged. In your world unless you are tough enough you are effectively screwed. That's wrong.
Nope - in my world I am telling you I don't need my manager to step in and rescue me and it would have demeaned me if he had and made me feel bad about myself. Is that the outcome you wanted - for people who have a different outlook from you to feel bad about themselves by being forced to adopt your world view?
In my world - if you do want help then you should ask for it - and then your manager should step in. In fact I did ask for help from the VP and he did step in - and the bit that made me feel great was that he did not take over and talk down to me and tell me what was good for me - he listened to how I wanted to handle the situation, bolstered my ego by calling me a bastard, commended me for being able to handle myself, and bothered to execute my plan by going above and beyond the call of duty. He was a great boss - especially considering I had never had a conversation with him before that private meeting except on the day he interviewed me for the job.
And of course everyone knew the behaviour was unacceptable in the organisation - but risk-takers push boundaries and I like risk takers. And you're being naive if you believe that an organisation's culture can prevent incidents happening. Humans can't be controlled to that extent that you can ensure incidents never happen.
-
Nope - in my world I am telling you I don't need my manager to step in and rescue me ...
Generalising again - if is was OK for you it should be OK for everyone. I'm not talking about you, I am talking about someone else who might end up in your position within that organisation, suffering the most overt of sexual harassment and bullying, and not feel able to deal with it themselves. What about them.
And actually I disagree on the most fundamental levels - once you have an organisation that sanctions the notion that if you are bullied or harassed then the appropriate response is to take the law into your own hands and bully and harass back then we are in a precipitous race to the bottom.
-
And of course everyone knew the behaviour was unacceptable in the organisation ...
Yet the organisation did nothing formally about it - what kind of message does that send? Indeed they appeared to turn a blind eye to further bullying be perpetrated in response to the original bullying.
Toxic environment.
-
Generalising again - if is was OK for you it should be OK for everyone. I'm not talking about you, I am talking about someone else who might end up in your position within that organisation, suffering the most overt of sexual harassment and bullying, and not feel able to deal with it themselves. What about them.
And actually I disagree on the most fundamental levels - once you have an organisation that sanctions the notion that if you are bullied or harassed then the appropriate response is to take the law into your own hands and bully and harass back then we are in a precipitous race to the bottom.
I suggest you stop quote-mining and misrepresenting - it comes across as dishonest and makes for a poor argument on your part.
-
Yet the organisation did nothing formally about it - what kind of message does that send? Indeed they appeared to turn a blind eye to further bullying be perpetrated in response to the original bullying.
Toxic environment.
For you maybe. The environment you prefer would be suffocatingly toxic for someone who has a different outlook from you - but that's why different people pick different types of work environments that are suited to their strengths and weaknesses. And that's why we have interview processes so people can assess the organisation and its managers and potential employees can assess if they fit in the organisation and the team.
-
He was a great boss - especially considering I had never had a conversation with him before that private meeting except on the day he interviewed me for the job.
I'm sorry - he was an awful boss. He sanctioned you doing something completely outside of employment law and acceptable employment practice to get back as the guy who had harassed you. He put you (the victim in the original situation) in a position where you could very easily, yourself, have been facing disciplinary proceedings and you wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Him too. Plus also sanctioned actions that could easily have allowed the original perpetrator off the hook. Imagine that guy had got into hot water again and had been properly disciplined and had complained, for example gone to an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal would tear your organisation to shred over their dealing with the original incident.
So your 'great' boss actually put you, himself and the organisation into an extremity risky and potentially damaging situation by sanctions completely unprofessional response to the original harassment. Plus also his actions could have resulted in the original perpetrator getting off scott free if actual disciplinary action was eventually taken for this or another incident.
-
For you maybe. The environment you prefer would be suffocatingly toxic for someone who has a different outlook from you - but that's why different people pick different types of work environments that are suited to their strengths and weaknesses.
I expect, as a minimum, that organisations abide by standard employment law - your story reveals an organisation that on multiple couples failed to even meet that minimum standard. Happy about that?
-
I'm sorry - he was an awful boss. He sanctioned you doing something completely outside of employment law and acceptable employment practice to get back as the guy who had harassed you. He put you (the victim in the original situation) in a position where you cold very easily, yourself, have been facing disciplinary proceedings. Plus also sanctioned actions that could easily have allowed the original perpetrator off the hook. Imagine that guy had got into hot water again and had been properly disciplined and had complained, for example gone to an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal would tear your organisation to shred over their dealing with the original incident.
So your 'great' boss actually put you, himself and the organisation into an extremity risky and potentially damaging situation by sanctions completely unprofessional response to the original harassment. Plus also his actions could have resulted in the original perpetrator getting off scott free if actual disciplinary action was eventually taken for this or another incident.
Thanks for your opinion.
-
I expect, as a minimum, that organisations abide by standard employment law - your story reveals an organisation that on multiple couples failed to even meet that minimum standard. Happy about that?
Thanks for your opinion. Yes I was happy at my first job. Enjoyed the team spirit and the friendships - my team leader came to my birthday party and leaving drinks. I went to his leaving drinks. So much happier with that outcome than the one that would have occurred if there had been disciplinary hearings. Thanks for asking.
-
There are clearly as many interpretations of this strand of Christianity as there are Christians, since there are Christians who stop at “Jesus loves us and we’re all sinners and only God can judge” without tacking on any additional bits about being gay or sodomy being an extra bad sin, deserving a seat at the back of the bus or is being born wrong.
The same way there are all kinds of Muslim messages coming at me every day expressing judgement. Not surprisingly I hang out with people who try to follow the only God can judge line, and don’t let all the Islamic broadcasts and speeches where people are judging my behaviour affect me - other than I might try to shoot down their arguments either in my head or out loud.
I can understand parents having a huge impact on us - we’re forced to live with them every day Which gives them lots of opportunities to mess with your head. In the UK I cannot understand why gay Christians don’t hang out with accepting religious people instead of tying themselves up in unnecessary knots because of someone else’s beliefs. Given people express beliefs all the time, it just seems masochistic to me to not ignore people saying stuff they believe if taking on their beliefs makes yyou feel bad.
It would be like me taking seriously Prof D’s belief that he has superior behavioural standards to me
and still coming back to the forum to feel inferior and unaccepted. Makes more sense to disregard Prof D’s beliefs then I don’t feel inferior. That’s the bit where I think gay Christians don’t really help themselves if they give so much of their power to other people, who are free to hold whatever beliefs they want.
It's not so simple. If you belong to one stripe of Christianity you can't just shop around for another when you feel like it. It's akin to looking for a different family of the one you have happens to read the Daily Mail and vote for Brexit. There are groups of gay Christians - even Evangelicals such as Farron - but joining them may mean the disapproval of their own church and their family.
Christianity, IME, is all about giving away your personal power - to priest, pastor, church elders - if you are raised that way it is very difficult to kick against it and maintain belief, especially as a teenager.
-
It's not so simple. If you belong to one stripe of Christianity you can't just shop around for another when you feel like it. It's akin to looking for a different family of the one you have happens to read the Daily Mail and vote for Brexit. There are groups of gay Christians - even Evangelicals such as Farron - but joining them may mean the disapproval of their own church and their family.
Christianity, IME, is all about giving away your personal power - to priest, pastor, church elders - if you are raised that way it is very difficult to kick against it and maintain belief, especially as a teenager.
I agree it is difficult to think with clarity. I don't know how the mechanism works that leads some people to accept one outlook and other people accept a different outlook. But if you know you will feel happier kicking against it, I wonder what people get out of not adapting their belief - presumably people adopted the belief in the first place in order to feel happier? They are not being accepted anyway for who they are so what's the pull to stay with that particular interpretation?
Growing up as a girl, I felt pressure to conform to certain narratives and expectations but they made me feel bad about myself if I felt I did not measure up and it was not an emotion I liked feeling. For example, I know I am going to grow old and wrinkly (unless I die young) and the belief that wrinkles and grey hair on women is less attractive will make me feel bad, and given the inevitability of the aging process, I decided it was better for my happiness to believe that wrinkles and grey hair is not less attractive. That other people believe something different about beauty is a freedom they have - obviously I would prefer it if they believed the same thing I believed - but it makes no sense to me to make myself unhappy by sharing their belief when I could make myself happy by believing something different.
Same with make-up - I figure if you wear make-up all the time, people are used to seeing you with make-up therefore when you don't wear make-up they think you look bad, plus your skin is probably spotty from all the make-up you have been wearing. So it makes sense to manage people's expectations by rarely wearing make-up so they think you look great when you do wear it, plus not wearing it most of the time is better for your skin, and better for your bank account as you barely spend anything on make-up. My daughters seem to have adopted this view as well - they can see the sense of it and they feel happier because they hear all the comments that their friends make about other people who usually wear make-up and then come into school sometimes without it. I don't know how their brains made this decision to go with my view over the view of others.
-
Gabriella , I'm beginning to like you !
-
Thanks. I'm sure that feeling won't last long when we get onto another topic :P
-
Christianity, IME, is all about giving away your personal power - to priest, pastor, church elders - if you are raised that way it is very difficult to kick against it and maintain belief, especially as a teenager.
Power of what? Is ''giving power to another person/other people what Christianity is all about'' I thought it was about giving your life to God? Do tell.
-
I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.
-
I hereby declare this thread to be well and truly derailed.
I don't know about that - it seems to follow on quite well from your comment in reply #12:
"What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control."
-
I don't know about that - it seems to follow on quite well from your comment in reply #12:
"What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control."
Islam is just as bad in that respect.
-
Thanks. I'm sure that feeling won't last long when we get onto another topic :P
have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍
-
have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍
Get a room :o
-
Get a room :o
a room is easy to find but Gabriella not so !!! 😂😂😂
-
I don't know about that - it seems to follow on quite well from your comment in reply #12:
"What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control."
If it does follow from my comment, then I accept my share of the blame - but the bulk of the past four pages or so appears to be a private ... err ... discussion between you and Prof D. I have found it interesting but somewhat removed from the Tim Farron situation.
Islam is just as bad in that respect.
Littleroses, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
-
have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍
No.
But I can remember at least a couple of times a person told me they took an instant dislike to me because of something cocky I've said the instant they met me but then decided within about half an hour that they liked me. And then there are people who continue to dislike me probably to this day.
-
If it does follow from my comment, then I accept my share of the blame - but the bulk of the past four pages or so appears to be a private ... err ... discussion between you and Prof D. I have found it interesting but somewhat removed from the Tim Farron situation.
Littleroses, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
True. Well back on topic. That Tim Farron, a politician, lied for political expediency isn't a surprise is it? I don't think it's possible to fill the House of Commons with 650 truthful politicians. Now that he's suddenly decided to profess his actual theological belief, let's see how that affects his political beliefs and stances and his political career.
-
It may perhaps work in his favour?
Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".
He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.
-
It may perhaps work in his favour?
Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".
Given that they have freely chosen to be members of that very organisation.
He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.
Given that I was talking about whether he would have been able to have become leader of the LibDems if his views were known to members then I doubt you are right. I don't think LibDem members (in other words the actual people who are part of that very organisation) would be particularly impressed with:
"I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness"
And I don't think they would be impressed by his views either - just a few days ago a comprehensive survey of the views of members of political parties was published - this showed that 84% of LibDem members support gay marriage - which is of course many steps further on the equalities path than simply believing that consensual gay sex is fine (and therefore not 'a sin' as Farron thinks, albeit failed to be clear about during either his election as leader, nor the general election).
-
It may perhaps work in his favour?
Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".
He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.
If Tim continues in politics it might also depolarise todays politics by adding a third option between those actually wishing to change the law to promote alienation and contrarianism and the right on thought police who are forever trying to catch people out for lukewarm commitment as has been exemplified by stupid questions which I recall on this forum like ''do you really believe in Gay people being able to get married'' followed by the inane 'yes but do you really, REALLY believe in Gay marriage?'
-
... and the right on thought police who are forever trying to catch people out for lukewarm commitment as has been exemplified by stupid questions which I recall on this forum like ''do you really believe in Gay people being able to get married'' followed by the inane 'yes but do you really, REALLY believe in Gay marriage?'
Isn't Tim Farron a perfect example of why these questions need to be asked - in other words that there are people who will claim to be in favour of gay marriage for political expediency or to be seen to be on the moral high ground, but are clearly lying. The point being that they don't REALLY believe in gay marriage.
And to be clear - there is no such thing as 'gay marriage' there is just marriage, which for the last few years had been available to opposite sex and same sex couples.
-
Isn't Tim Farron a perfect example of why these questions need to be asked
Not really unless you are of a dogmatic bent. It is possible to consider Homosexuality a theological sin but not a crime. This is a secular society after all.
- in other words that there are people who will claim to be in favour of gay marriage for political expediency or to be seen to be on the moral high ground, but are clearly lying.
You keep saying clearly this and clearly that but in fact anybody could be lying about their commitment say to gay rights or anything. We have to weigh up things like is Tim suddenly going to mutate into some kind of invincible homophobic monster and rule middle earth. Does he have a secret homophobic army hidden in Wookey Hole, unlikely. I would trust Tim not to reverse any of the laws regarding LGBT since I put him in the bracket that he doesn't agree but would fight for peoples rights to whatever.
In terms of favouring or not favouring that is irrelevant. It is having democracy at the forefront of action. Praxis not Dogma
The point being that they don't REALLY believe in gay marriage.
That's not the point and also they don't necessarily have to hold that position for example they may accept marriage but not recognise gay holy matrimony. As far as I can see the latter is irrelevant to a secular society.
Your stuff about there is ''only marriage.'' That's your opinion but don't you mean, playing your game, that there is REALLY only secular marriage because there is in your view no God? Isnt this a control issue with you?
-
Given that I was talking about whether he would have been able to have become leader of the LibDems if his views were known to members then I doubt you are right. I don't think LibDem members (in other words the actual people who are part of that very organisation) would be particularly impressed with:
"I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness"
And I don't think they would be impressed by his views either - just a few days ago a comprehensive survey of the views of members of political parties was published - this showed that 84% of LibDem members support gay marriage - which is of course many steps further on the equalities path than simply believing that consensual gay sex is fine (and therefore not 'a sin' as Farron thinks, albeit failed to be clear about during either his election as leader, nor the general election).
I think it’s important that the question is asked in order to highlight the dangers of people who think like Prof D and how important it is to fight against and isolate his dangerous strand of illiberalism in a relatively free society. I’m fine in a secular society with Tim Farron thinking that from a theological perspective I am committing a sin by being a Muslim, provided he defends my right to be one in this secular society. Otherwise secular is meaningless - we might as well be a theocracy.
I agree with people like Jenny Rigg, the Lib Dem LGBT’s acting Chair who spoke out in April on the matter - I linked to her view back in reply # 48 on this thread:
“I see that, thanks to Cathy Newman’s interview last night, the thorny theological topic of Sin has raised its ugly head once more.
Let me get this right out in the beginning: I don’t give a fig what Tim Farron’s religious beliefs are. You know why? Because I am a Liberal. He could believe the sky is made from Puff the Magic Dragon’s bumfluff, and I wouldn’t care one jot, whit or iota. What I do care about, and care deeply about, is
How Tim Farron votes in parliament
How he treats people – LGBT+ people in particular – in everyday life...”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/lgbt-lib-dems-acting-chair-praises-tim-farrons-position-on-lgbt-equality-53970.html
The media portray our society as one that has already been taken over by Prof D’s dangerous strand of illiberalism My personal view is that his illiberalism is still thankfully only part of a vocal fringe, but it is important to keep talking about the issue in order to remain vigilant to how easy it would be for the rot to spread if liberals do nothing.
-
I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.
-
I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.
What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?
We know homophobia to be abroad in the non religious community. We know non belief to be abroad in the non religious community.
Lots of politicians are atheist. It is encumbent on me as part of a minority therefore to keep half an eye out for politicians who are going to seek to legislate and work against the likes of me. I do not want to legislate against their atheism and indeed have voted for atheists to political office in the past on the principle that what is important is praxis not dogma.
I am particularly impressed by Jeremy Corbyn's attitude to faith. As a practical politician he knows he has to work with people of religion and he strikes me that he takes the prospect that he has to serve as well as rule seriously.
In conclusion therefore I think you are specially pleading religion.
-
What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?
We know homophobia to be abroad in the non religious community. We know non belief to be abroad in the non religious community.
Lots of politicians are atheist. It is encumbent on me as part of a minority therefore to keep half an eye out for politicians who are going to seek to legislate and work against the likes of me. I do not want to legislate against their atheism and indeed have voted for atheists to political office in the past on the principle that what is important is praxis not dogma.
I am particularly impressed by Jeremy Corbyn's attitude to faith. As a practical politician he knows he has to work with people of religion and he strikes me that he takes the prospect that he has to serve as well as rule seriously.
In conclusion therefore I think you are specially pleading religion.
Just out of interest, what benefit do get from your faith?
-
What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?
The difference is God, surely? You said yourself earlier that religious belief - Christian belief - is about personal surrender to God's will. A Christian is a Christian before all else. If someone holds the view that God forbids gay sex then to vote in any way that doesn't support that is deeply problematic. I'm not at all surprised that Farron has been squirming, he must have felt a huge amount of discomfort at what is in effect, for him, a betrayal of God.
-
No.
But I can remember at least a couple of times a person told me they took an instant dislike to me because of something cocky I've said the instant they met me but then decided within about half an hour that they liked me. And then there are people who continue to dislike me probably to this day.
im sorry, it's over, it's not you it's me , I can't get past the Muslim thing , or any religion for that matter
🏃🏃🏃
-
It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally.
A bit of an unjustified slur here because of the Christian heritage of helping all, turning the cheek, love going right back to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
A better way of putting your sentences would have been to expect most people with prejudices to put them aside.
In conclusion I fail to see in the light of the Gospel and the tradition of Christian and religious charity how you have somehow turned all that on it's head.
-
The difference is God, surely? You said yourself earlier that religious belief - Christian belief - is about personal surrender to God's will. A Christian is a Christian before all else. If someone holds the view that God forbids gay sex then to vote in any way that doesn't support that is deeply problematic. I'm not at all surprised that Farron has been squirming, he must have felt a huge amount of discomfort at what is in effect, for him, a betrayal of God.
God, Darwin, Human goodness, Zeitgeist, ego all work as sources of motivation so to single out God is special pleading.
Also you are singling out Homosexuality as THE sin. I put this down as it being the best weapon in the antichristian armory but your emphasis is also special pleading. Farron would I imagine also consider adultery and divorce sinful. How then in this instance would homosexuality be special? There must be a few non believer politicians who think adultery is wrong. Why do they not get the consideration of Farron? Answer because you are specially pleading religion.
It looks therefore that this is a gussied up attack on persons having different beliefs.
Finally you only vote for A or B, how somebody votes for something is a ridiculous consideration.
e.g. ''I voted for Brexit with my arse slightly proud of the voting booth''.
-
I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.
I don’t find it bizarre to think that God wants me to follow rules for my life but not impose those rules on other people’s lives. Some Evangelicals may well feel they have a duty to spread a message but not impose a message on others, especially others who have different beliefs. That would be the liberal in them.
That you find it bizarre that a religious person such as an Evangelical liberal politician can think that way is a reflection of your beliefs, misconceptions and generalisations about religious people. As my link showed, certain people in the Lib-Dems, based on Farron’s actions in defending LBGT rights, don’t appear to share your unevidenced concern on Farron’s ability to carry out a political role that reflects their liberal principles.
-
im sorry, it's over, it's not you it's me , I can't get past the Muslim thing , or any religion for that matter
🏃🏃🏃
I wasn’t aware it had begun, but ok.
-
I'd have thought the only approach that the likes of Farron could reasonably adopt so to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, and in his case subsequent lying, would be that if he felt his political activities on behalf of the electorate always had to accord with his personal theological position irrespective of other political positions he could adopt, would be to have campaigned on that basis - in order that the electorate in his constituency would be fully aware that, should they elect him, he would always act in his political role on whatever basis he felt his theological beliefs required of him.
He didn't do this.
-
I don’t find it bizarre to think that God wants me to follow rules for my life but not impose those rules on other people’s lives. Some Evangelicals may well feel they have a duty to spread a message but not impose a message on others, especially others who have different beliefs. That would be the liberal in them.
That you find it bizarre that a religious person such as an Evangelical liberal politician can think that way is a reflection of your beliefs, misconceptions and generalisations about religious people. As my link showed, certain people in the Lib-Dems, based on Farron’s actions in defending LBGT rights, don’t appear to share your unevidenced concern on Farron’s ability to carry out a political role that reflects their liberal principles.
This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin. So my local Baptist minister believes that if gay Christians go to one of her services she is sinning if she doesn’t tell them that the Lord’s word is that he does not allow them to have sexual relations with other people of the same gender. A Christian politician who believes that gay sex is a sin is allowing others to sin if they vote for pro gay rights legislation.
Of course not all Christians do believe that same sex relations are sinful. Some believe that they can’t judge. Others believe that Scripture is open to interpretation just as it has been for issues like slavery and divorce. I belonged on the liberal wing of the church and I and most of my fellow churchgoers were pro gay rights, but only because our theological position was that gay relationships aren’t sinful. Peoole can fudge it in their personal lives (a dad accepting a gay son and his partner for example) but it doesn’t work for someone in a position of authority who is allowing people to fall into sin. That is the problem with Farron voting on gay rights and I would have thought that in his position the only option would be to abstain from such voting.
-
Gordon
My impression is that Farron campaigned on the basis that his theological position on this issue would not influence his political role on this issue.
Where he made a mistake was lying during his campaign about what his irrelevant theological position was. He has now corrected that mistake. I don’t require my politicians to never make mistakes as that would make me a hypocrite. I expect them to make amends and rectify mistakes as best as they can. Farron has met my standards in relation to this. He has clarification ed his position and it is one that the acting chair of the Lib-Dem LBGT+ is comfortable with. It may well be that other constituents will agree with Jennie Rigg’s assessment that Farron is an acceptable Lib-Dem MP who defends LBGT+ interests.
-
This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin. So my local Baptist minister believes that if gay Christians go to one of her services she is sinning if she doesn’t tell them that the Lord’s word is that he does not allow them to have sexual relations with other people of the same gender. A Christian politician who believes that gay sex is a sin is allowing others to sin if they vote for pro gay rights legislation.
Of course not all Christians do believe that same sex relations are sinful. Some believe that they can’t judge. Others believe that Scripture is open to interpretation just as it has been for issues like slavery and divorce. I belonged on the liberal wing of the church and I and most of my fellow churchgoers were pro gay rights, but only because our theological position was that gay relationships aren’t sinful. Peoole can fudge it in their personal lives (a dad accepting a gay son and his partner for example) but it doesn’t work for someone in a position of authority who is allowing people to fall into sin. That is the problem with Farron voting on gay rights and I would have thought that in his position the only option would be to abstain from such voting.
You clearly do have bias and misconceptions because you are generalising. Also if the evidence is to be believed Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ interests. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t counteract the evidence of Farron’s political record.
-
You clearly do have bias and misconceptions because you are generalising. Also if the evidence is to be believed Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ interests. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t counteract the evidence of Farron’s political record.
No, what I have is knowledge. I lived and breathed this stuff for years.
As for Farron’s standing as an MP, that is for his constituents to decide. He may be a very fine constituency MP. I don’t know as I don’t live there.
-
This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin.
I have never come across that and I dipped my toe into monastic life, funnily enough also periodically attending a Baptist church, so I question that this is clearly taught.
Also it does not make much sense in a world where we are capable of sinning.
Your statement lays the ground for a caricature of evangelicals and reinforces your mistaken view that only two possible responses are possible here. Not allow people to sin (how is that possible?) or get rid of the idea of sin altogether
-
Farron has met my standards in relation to this.
Failed mine and many others which is why he will never now attain high office.
Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.
-
No, what I have is knowledge. I lived and breathed this stuff for years.
As for Farron’s standing as an MP, that is for his constituents to decide. He may be a very fine constituency MP. I don’t know as I don’t live there.
I don’t dispute that you have knowledge. I am saying that if I used my knowledge of some interpretations of Islam and my knowledge of some Muslims to generalise about other Muslims or generalise about Islam, I think I would be displaying bias and my opinion on a particular issue could therefore be based on misconceptions.
If the evidence is to be believed, the acting chair of Lib-Dem LBGT+ thinks Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ rights.
-
Failed mine and many others which is why he will never now attain high office.
Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.
I’m afraid I don’t trust your crystal ball on Farron’s future political career.
-
Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.
Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?
-
Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?
You call yourself a Christian, yet you think gay sex is wrong. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, possibly because he was in a gay relationship with the disciple whom he loved.
-
I don’t dispute that you have knowledge. I am saying that if I used my knowledge of some interpretations of Islam and my knowledge of some Muslims to generalise about other Muslims or generalise about Islam, I think I would be displaying bias and my opinion on a particular issue could therefore be based on misconceptions.
If the evidence is to be believed, the acting chair of Lib-Dem LBGT+ thinks Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ rights.
For Evangelicals the bible has to be adhered to. Luke 17:1-4 for example.
Brian Paddick sees a need to repair the damage Farron has done.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddick-writesliberal-democrats-remain-the-most-accepting-of-all-the-political-parties-whoever-you-are-and-whatever-you-believe-56348.html
-
You call yourself a Christian, yet you think gay sex is wrong. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, possibly because he was in a gay relationship with the disciple whom he loved.
LR, this is something of a "King Charles' Head" for you !
-
I sometimes worry that some people appear almost 'hard wired' to see homophobic comments as somehow less shocking and unacceptable when compared to sexist of racist comments.
So let's look at another example - this time of grossly racist comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42679187
Would anyone here be prepared to defend these comments and not consider that this person is not fit for public office on the basis of her expressed racist comments? Yet when it comes to homophobic comments many people take a different view thinking that it is OK for someone in a public role to express homophobic views in the context of that role and their opinion should be 'respected'. Should this woman's opinion be 'respected' - is it therefore wrong for UKIP to suspend her because she was only expressing her views?
-
For Evangelicals the bible has to be adhered to. Luke 17:1-4 for example.
Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record. Do you have any actual evidence about Farron’s political record that you want to share? By the way, you’re still generalising so you’re still displaying bias.
Brian Paddick sees a need to repair the damage Farron has done.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddick-writesliberal-democrats-remain-the-most-accepting-of-all-the-political-parties-whoever-you-are-and-whatever-you-believe-56348.html
Farron also saw a need to repair the damage that lying about his theological position caused. Which is why he told the truth about his theological position. Paddick has not said that Farron’s theological position prevented Farron from acting on his Liberal political beliefs to protect LGBT+ rights, if the evidence is to be believed.
-
Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record. Do you have any actual evidence that you want to share? By the way, you’re still generalising so you’re still displaying bias.
Farron also saw a need to repair the damage that lying about his theological position caused. Which is why he told the truth about his theological position. Paddick has not said that Farron’s theological position prevented Farron from acting on his Liberal political beliefs to protect LGBT+ rights, if the evidence is to be believed.
It’s not my bias, it’s the Gospel. Hope (formerly of this parish) was adamant that his homophobia was ‘loving’ because it ‘prevented sin.’
If Farron believes gay sex is sinful yet supports it through his voting he’s breaking what the Bible teaches. If he does so because of his liberalism then he is putting that ahead of his religion.
-
I sometimes worry that some people appear almost 'hard wired' to see homophobic comments as somehow less shocking and unacceptable when compared to sexist of racist comments.
So let's look at another example - this time of grossly racist comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42679187
Would anyone here be prepared to defend these comments and not consider that this person is not fit for public office on the basis of her expressed racist comments? Yet when it comes to homophobic comments many people take a different view thinking that it is OK for someone in a public role to express homophobic views in the context of that role and their opinion should be 'respected'. Should this woman's opinion be 'respected' - is it therefore wrong for UKIP to suspend her because she was only expressing her views?
You haven’t demonstrated how these comments about physical beauty or the Royal Family’s bloodline relate to Farron’s statement on his theological position so i’m not seeing the equivalence. I could see the equivalence if you can find a comment from a politician that speaking with a Pakistani accent is a sin and then tell me what that politician’s voting record is on protecting immigrant’s rights
-
Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record.
Actually Farron failed to vote in favour of equality legislation for gay people in pretty well all votes that count - he was absent for the key vote on gay marriage, voted no on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations etc.
Where he voted in favour, was typically secondary - e.g. he voted for divorce for gay couples, but that hardly a great step forward, the advance was allowing gay people to marry, which he failed to support in its crucial third reading.
-
... and then tell me what that politician’s voting record is on protecting immigrant’s rights
Which, if we are equating to Farron, would be very poor - see my last post.
-
LR, this is something of a "King Charles' Head" for you !
Meaning?
-
Actually Farron failed to vote in favour of equality legislation for gay people in pretty well all votes that count - he was absent for the key vote on gay marriage, voted no on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations etc.
Where he voted in favour, was typically secondary - e.g. he voted for divorce for gay couples, but that hardly a great step forward, the advance was allowing gay people to marry, which he failed to support in its crucial third reading.
Your argument about Farron’s voting record is countered in the article I linked to by Jenny Rigg - acting chair for Lib-Dem LGBT+ though your bias may mean that you decide you prefer your narrative to the one provided by the acting chair, who by the way is an atheist.
-
Which, if we are equating to Farron, would be very poor - see my last post.
Have the argument with Jennie Rigg - the acting chair for Lib-Dem LGBT+ because she seems to have evidence that proves you wrong. As a liberal, I think you are still entitled to your beliefs.
-
Meaning?
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head
-
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head
Thank You. :)
-
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head
I still don't get it?
-
I still don't get it?
Oh Dear.
-
Oh Dear.
So maybe you would care to explain to this senile old woman exactly what you are talking about?
-
I think they are referring to the fact that you quite often bring up the concept of Jesus being in a relationship with one of his disciples. An argument which may have had some relevance once (although I don't think it has), but one which has now lost its power due to overuse.
-
I think they are referring to the fact that you quite often bring up the concept of Jesus being in a relationship with one of his disciples. An argument which may have had some relevance once (although I don't think it has), but one which has now lost its power due to overuse.
If you say so.
-
Just to note that Farron resigned because he decided he couldn’t be a political leader and remain faithful to Christ. It’s in his resignation speech, one that Jennie Rigg described as ‘awful’ in the New Statesman.
-
And an idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420
I remember in the 70's one of the guys at our Church youth group who was around 25 did not know sex before marriage was wrong for believers. When in a conversation he was shocked to find out he was wrong. He wasn't a liar just ill-informed.
But each to his own beliefs. As long as those beliefs do not make people hurt others. All sins are sin and no difference in the eyes of God.
So whatever sin you sin, you are guilty of breaking all the laws. Interesting when you think about it. No point in pointing the finger. :D
-
Just to note that Farron resigned because he decided he couldn’t be a political leader and remain faithful to Christ. It’s in his resignation speech, one that Jennie Rigg described as ‘awful’ in the New Statesman.
True and Jennie also said she wrote in sorrow rather than anger and can’t understand his reasoning his speech. More importantly, she doesn’t think his political work to protect LGBT+ is awful and said she would miss Tim and the next leader would have a lot to live up to.
Hopefully he’ll be back after a rest, in a prominent Lib-Dem role that will allow him to continue his exemplary political work for LGBT+.
-
Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.
-
Hopefully he’ll be back after a rest, in a prominent Lib-Dem role that will allow him to continue his exemplary political work for LGBT+.
Don't make me laugh.
During the time when Farron has been an MP there have only been two really serious votes on gay rights issues, all the rest were merely early stage procedural votes or merely neatening legislation.
The two serious votes being:
1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.
2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Some friend of the LGB community.
So on two of the three biggest votes in support of gay rights (the other being the legalisation of homosexuality back in the 1960s) Farron voted against one and absented himself on the other.
-
Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.
Both of the people Gabriella mentions as supporters of Farron's record, Jennie Rigg and Caron Lindsay have both in recent days come our strongly against Farron on the basis of his recent statement.
-
Don't make me laugh.
During the time when Farron has been an MP there have only been two really serious votes on gay rights issues, all the rest were merely early stage procedural votes or merely neatening legislation.
The two serious votes being:
1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.
2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Some friend of the LGB community.
So on two of the three biggest votes in support of gay rights (the other being the legalisation of homosexuality back in the 1960s) Farron voted against one and absented himself on the other.
Argue it with Jennie Rigg - the acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ whose article I linked to explains the reasons for his vote. Because of your bias you probably prefer your narrative over hers. That's fine - as a liberal I think you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want about Farron.
-
Both of the people Gabriella mentions as supporters of Farron's record, Jennie Rigg and Caron Lindsay have both in recent days come our strongly against Farron on the basis of his recent statement.
Happy to look at the link and see what they actually said. I don't trust your narrative, given your obvious biased and illiberal attitude and what looked like dishonest quote-mining in previous replies on this thread.
-
Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.
People? Oh no, not people! Surely not - why didn't you say so. Well if people say that it must be true. Not surprisingly I'll take the evidence presented by the acting chair of the Lib-Dem LGBT+ over your vague posts about "people".
-
People? Oh no, not people! Surely not - why didn't you say so. Well if people say that it must be true. Not surprisingly I'll take the evidence presented by the acting chair of the Lib-Dem LGBT+ over your vague posts about "people".
No, I’ll take the hurt expressed by the guy in Pink News (as linked to earlier) over one of Farron’s chums.
-
No, I’ll take the hurt expressed by the guy in Pink News (as linked to earlier) over one of Farron’s chums.
Oh yes - I remember that person. He was feeling hurt wasn't he? Vivid imagination about Farron expecting him to sit at the back of the bus.
I'll take the evidence of the atheist acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ - she seems to be friends with Farron because of all the work he has done in support of LGBT+ rights.
-
I'll take the evidence of the atheist acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ - she seems to be friends with Farron because of all the work he has done in support of LGBT+ rights.
Don't be so naive - there is no evidence that Farron was 'friends' with either Rigg or Lindsay - they were party colleagues.
Both links you provide are to articles written by senior LibDem party officials, written in the middle of a general election campaign where their leader's record on gay rights was under fire. What do you expect them to say under those circumstances - they will, and were almost certainly asked to by the campaign management, come to his defence. That both have distances themselves from Farron more recently speaks volumes as to their real thoughts on Farron and LGBT+ issues.
This is what Rigg said, when not required to support him in a general election campaign, triggered by his resignation speech, which you will remember effectively said he couldn't be leader and a christian:
'It was awful. Pious, self-pitying, upsetting to all three of the overlapping circles in the Venn diagram of liberals, Christians, and LGBT+ people, and semantically dubious to boot. I genuinely do not know what he was thinking, other than (I suspect) “I am knackered after a bruising election campaign in which I came within 500 votes of doubling our seats”. Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”. LGBT+ Christians are horrified that he has posited a basic incompatibility between their religion and their sexuality. Liberals are horrified that he said that he had to choose between liberalism and Christianity, when one of our founding principles is freedom of religion.'
Note the line:
'Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”.'
-
Don't be so naive - there is no evidence that Farron was 'friends' with either Rigg or Lindsay - they were party colleagues.
Both links you provide are to articles written by senior LibDem party officials, written in the middle of a general election campaign where their leader's record on gay rights was under fire. What do you expect them to say under those circumstances - they will, and were almost certainly asked to by the campaign management, come to his defence. That both have distances themselves from Farron more recently speaks volumes as to their real thoughts on Farron and LGBT+ issues.
This is what Rigg said, when not required to support him in a general election campaign, triggered by his resignation speech, which you will remember effectively said he couldn't be leader and a christian:
'It was awful. Pious, self-pitying, upsetting to all three of the overlapping circles in the Venn diagram of liberals, Christians, and LGBT+ people, and semantically dubious to boot. I genuinely do not know what he was thinking, other than (I suspect) “I am knackered after a bruising election campaign in which I came within 500 votes of doubling our seats”. Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”. LGBT+ Christians are horrified that he has posited a basic incompatibility between their religion and their sexuality. Liberals are horrified that he said that he had to choose between liberalism and Christianity, when one of our founding principles is freedom of religion.'
Note the line:
'Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”.'
You're confused Prof D - it was Rhiannon who claimed Rigg and Farron were political friends and I was responding to her point that they were political friends. Let's not derail the thread by you irrelevantly insisting that your opinions on friends are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. We'll just agree to disagree.
In fact the headline of Jennie's response to Farron's resignation speech was "Tim Farron's resignation speech was awful - but he was a friend to Lib Dem LGBT members".
I am sure it will be relatively easy for you to contact Jennie and advise her to stop being naive for describing Farron as a friend.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/06/tim-farrons-resignation-speech-was-awful-he-was-friend-lib-dem-lgbt
By the way - you copy and paste the URL to add a link so people can read and interpret the whole article for themselves rather than take your word for it - if you only paste selective quotes without the link you appear dishonest and untrustworthy.
My view is that Farron has previously changed his political position on political issues - as have other MPs - and I don't have a problem with an MP changing their political position so long as they inform the party members and voters of their new position. I don't have an issue with waiting and seeing what emerges politically after his "awful" resignation speech in terms of his political work for LGBT+.
I don't care what his theological position is - he is not my friend, I don't need to hang out with him, this is not a personal relationship. Not that the media ever got around to asking him this theological question but if they did hound him on it and if he was forced to answer and he described practising Islam as a sin it has little impact on me and I think his freedom to hold that belief is more important than any discomfort I feel - as much as I believe your right to tell me I have inferior behavioural standards to you is more important than any discomfort I might feel about your opinion (given we're not friends either). It wouldn't surprise me if some Christians say that practising Islam is a sin based on their interpretation of their own theology.
Farron's speech started off well - he talked about his Christian faith i.e. his interpretation rather than saying he speaks for all Christians. But then it got awful when he started generalising by saying "living as a faithful Christian" as though Christians who disagreed with his interpretation weren't faithful Christians. But after that blip he went back to talking about his own short-comings in being unable to reconcile his faith with his role as leader - as he said a better, wiser person than him might have been able to deal with this more successfully. I didn't think that part was awful. And I thought the next part was spot on:
"I'm a liberal to my finger tips, and that liberalism means that I am passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believe different things to me.
There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society, but I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it - it's not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.
Even so, I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.
In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.
That's why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats."
https://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal-democrat-leader-tim-farron-resigns
In the world of politics I am only interested in Farron's political stance and how it impacts me.
-
In the world of politics I am only interested in Farron's political stance and how it impacts me.
An awful lot of waffle so I cut to the chase - your final comment.
Surely the most clearcut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, is how they vote in critical votes in Parliament. In this respect Farron's record on gay rights is really poor.
He voted in favour of allowing discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation to continue (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations).
He failed to turn up in the key vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — its Third Reading, the vote that actually enshrined equal marriage in law.
In the time he has been an MP these are the only two votes with major consequences to the LGB community - all the others are either procedural or window-dressing. In neither case did he vote in favour.
Actually his opposition to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations is most telling. Suggesting Farron is a supporter of gay rights when he voted against making it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is a bit like claiming someone is in favour of equal rights for women despite them voting against the Equal Pay Act 1970.
-
An awful lot of waffle so I cut to the chase - your final comment.
Not surprising that you think other people's opinions are waffle while your opinion is...er not. At least you're consistent on here.
Surely the most clearcut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, is how they vote in critical votes in Parliament. In this respect Farron's record on gay rights is really poor.
He voted in favour of allowing discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation to continue (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations).
He failed to turn up in the key vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — its Third Reading, the vote that actually enshrined equal marriage in law.
In the time he has been an MP these are the only two votes with major consequences to the LGB community - all the others are either procedural or window-dressing. In neither case did he vote in favour.
Actually his opposition to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations is most telling. Suggesting Farron is a supporter of gay rights when he voted against making it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is a bit like claiming someone is in favour of equal rights for women despite them voting against the Equal Pay Act 1970.
My view hasn't changed from reply #205 when you last raised this same point. I believe I said argue it with Jennie Rigg - the acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ whose article I linked to explains Farron's reason for abstaining. Because of your bias you probably prefer your narrative over hers. That's fine - as a liberal I think you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want about Farron.
Farron himself has explained he did not vote on the 3rd reading because he disagreed with the spousal veto clause that meant when a married trans person seeks gender recognition, their spouse must give permission. His interview can be found here.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/
Pink News article on the issue of spousal veto:
"The legislation states, and the government will tell you, that the spouse is consenting for the marriage to continue. In practise, they actually have the power to consent – or not – to their partner’s gender being legally recognised.
Because if they do not give permission “for the marriage to continue” then the trans person is blocked from having their gender recognised. The marriage continues to exist.
The trans person is given six months to end the marriage. The other partner still has the power to refuse – meaning potentially costly and lengthy divorce proceedings for the trans spouse. During which time they do not have legal gender recognition or the associated protections afforded by it."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/07/feature-what-is-the-trans-spousal-veto-and-why-does-it-matter/
Did you want a clear-cut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, or an accurate way? You can't be much of an academic if you only rely on 10 year old historical data to reach conclusions. If you actually care what Farron's political stance is there are plenty of interviews with him about LGBT+ issues since the 2007 vote you brought up. Oh and did I mention that Jennie Rigg, acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+.....
On the other hand if you just come on here to feel superior over anyone who disagrees with you - carry on.
-
1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.
2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
1. Perhaps he thought that same sex marriage was being rushed through without being properly considered?
2. Perhaps he thought that making it illegal to refuse to make a cake with a pro ssm message would be silly?
-
I’m afraid I don’t trust your crystal ball on Farron’s future political career.
Likewise.
-
1. Perhaps he thought that same sex marriage was being rushed through without being properly considered?
2. Perhaps he thought that making it illegal to refuse to make a cake with a pro ssm message would be silly?
Ashers cake case did not rear its head until 2015. The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.
Peter Tatchell also thought the legal judgement against Ashers was incorrect on the basis of freedom of expression principles. But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html
-
Likewise.
Except I don't recall making a definite prediction about the future like you did. But if I did feel free to let me know which reply number that was.
I''l demonstrate: You said in reply # 178 "which is why he will never now attain high office." which is why I said in response that I don't trust your crystal ball.
He might attain high office, he might not - politics is a funny game.
-
Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?
Ooops, forgot to post link.
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Tim-Farron-affair-Are-evangelicals-no-longer-welcome-in-politics-David-Robertson-Jonathan-Bartley
-
Ooops, forgot to post link.
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Tim-Farron-affair-Are-evangelicals-no-longer-welcome-in-politics-David-Robertson-Jonathan-Bartley
Thanks, this looks interesting :)
-
But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>
He might, he might argue that he thinks Tatchell wrong to think the way he does on the Ashers case but that doesn't make him homophobic.
-
Ashers cake case did not rear its head until 2015. The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.
Peter Tatchell also thought the legal judgement against Ashers was incorrect on the basis of freedom of expression principles. But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html
I appreciate that, I was just putting on the style a bit ;)
FWIW I would not have a problem with making a cake with a pro ssm message on it, but I would object to being asked to make a cake with a "Abortion is a womans right to choose" message. Both are political statements yet thanks to what IMHO is a badly constructed law, it is illegal to refuse the former, yet legal to refuse the latter.
-
He might, he might argue that he thinks Tatchell wrong to think the way he does on the Ashers case but that doesn't make him homophobic.
Actually the point I was trying to make was that I think calling someone homophobic or racist or sexist is a very subjective assessment so the terms have become increasingly meaningless and is a short-cut for lazy people to avoid exercising their brain cells to make an argument.
I would be more than happy for Prof D to call me homophobic, racist and sexist every day of the week on here - if he could be bothered - that's how meaningless I think the labels are. But as a liberal I am happy for other people to feel the labels mean something.
-
I appreciate that, I was just putting on the style a bit ;)
FWIW I would not have a problem with making a cake with a pro ssm message on it, but I would object to being asked to make a cake with a "Abortion is a womans right to choose" message. Both are political statements yet thanks to what IMHO is a badly constructed law, it is illegal to refuse the former, yet legal to refuse the latter.
There is an additional wrinkle in the cake case that in NI there is legislation against political discrimination as well for reasons that are historically obvious. I think the bakery should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake in the specifuc case but not if it had been an enagagement cake for a gay couple.
-
There is an additional wrinkle in the cake case that in NI there is legislation against political discrimination as well for reasons that are historically obvious. I think the bakery should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake in the specifuc case but not if it had been an enagagement cake for a gay couple.
As far as I am concerned, in the "gay cake" case then the gay couple had a case for breach of contract, and it should have been left at that. I don't know enough about the NI civil court system to suggest a remedy, in England it would have been a small claims court case.
-
As a result of this thread I've noticed that the Comment section on Premier is quite lively.
-
The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.
Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.
To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.
-
Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.
To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.
OOI is there any indication what the reasons for the other Lib Dems voting against were?
-
OOI is there any indication what the reasons for the other Lib Dems voting against were?
Who knows - is there any reason why:
Alan Beith (President of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum)
Colin Breed (Methodist Lay preacher)
Bob Russell (brought up in the Congregational Church and now in the United Reformed Church)
would also have voted to maintain discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Beats me ;)
-
Very amusing. 'Protecting freedom of expression' is code for 'I need my Christian prejudices'.
-
Just to cover any question about Peter Tatchell on this
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/08/tim-farron-apologises-for-claiming-peter-tatchell-opposed-equality-law/
-
As a result of this thread I've noticed that the Comment section on Premier is quite lively.
After reading your above post I found Premier & eventually managed to find Tim Farron's interview with subsequent comments. What an eye opener! I really don't feel comfortable with that website, never liked Premier Radio on the odd occasion I tuned in years ago.
I've read the posts on this thread and can't add anything that hasn't been said already.
Someone earlier in the thread said that Christians cannot expect similar opinions from those with different views. Basically we judge ourselves by certain yardsticks but do not sit in judgement on anyone else who isn't Christian (not that it is only Christian who have such views).Upholding the law is important and if our secular laws go one way we must uphold them. We can only judge ourselves - everyone falls short. Politicians need to ensure that the law is upheld and everyone treated fairly within the law, no assessment by our own religious beliefs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said much the same and no-one seems to mind him being in a good political position (except for being a Tory (shame!), but that's another matter). Second time I've mentioned him but sometimes I admire qualities in politicians of a different slant to my own.
Very amusing. 'Protecting freedom of expression' is code for 'I need my Christian prejudices'.
Certainly true for some wigginhall & often blatantly obvious. Let's be glad Tim Farron has come clean, dunno what future he has as a politician though.
(FTR my personal belief is that SSM is right and just.)
-
Someone earlier in the thread said that Christians cannot expect similar opinions from those with different views. Basically we judge ourselves by certain yardsticks but do not sit in judgement on anyone else who isn't Christian (not that it is only Christian who have such views).
I don't think that is true at all. Society, and individuals, are pretty judgemental over those who express racist, sexist or homophobic views. Just look at the row over the girlfriend of the UKIP leader, in which she was (quite righty) soundly condemned), but also Henry Bolton's fitness for public office is still under question due to guilt by association/bad judgement.
Now I have no idea if either are christians, certainly I'm not aware of it having been mentioned.
Actually I think that those expressing extreme views (e.g. racist, sexist or homophobic views) are treated much, much more leniently when they justify those views on the basis of religion compared to other justifications. We allow things to be said in the name of religion without challenge/condemnation that we'd never allow as a society when not justified on the basis of religion.
So earlier there was mention of the Ashers bakery case - and while there was condemnation, it wasn't universal with many people defending their right to express (and act on their religious beliefs). Do you really belief there would have been such tip-toeing around the issue had it been a racist baker refusing to make a cake supporting Black History month and civil rights, and justifying it (without reference to religion) on the basis that he thinks that black people aren't equal to white people in society. Nope - I suspect the condemnation would have been pretty well universal.
As a society we allow people to express views when justified by religion that we'd never accept in a non religious context.
-
I think any decent person should be judgemental of those who hold racist, homophobic and sexist views.
-
I think any decent person should be judgemental of those who hold racist, homophobic and sexist views.
Why? What does that achieve?
-
Why? What does that achieve?
Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.
Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger. ;)
-
Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.
Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger. ;)
I think it’s inevitable that we make judgements in our head, but as you say, voicing them doesn’t often help and can make opposing positions more entrenched. And sometimes there are reasons why people hold the views that they do - not excuses, but reasons nevertheless.
And I’ve no clue what is ‘decent’ about being judgemental.
-
Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.
Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger. ;)
You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.
-
You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.
Challenging views isn’t the same thing as judging people for them.
-
Challenging views isn’t the same thing as judging people for them.
I make no apology for judging people, I don't see it as a problem.
-
I make no apology for judging people, I don't see it as a problem.
Then you have to expect that people will judge you if they see your views as ill informed, ignorant or unkind.
Judging people is often very revelatory about the individual making the judgement, without saying much about the one being judged at all.
-
Then you have to expect that people will judge you if they see your views as ill informed, ignorant or unkind.
Judging people is often very revelatory about the individual making the judgement, without saying much about the one being judged at all.
I say what I think and if others don't like what I have to say, it is no skin off my nose.
-
I say what I think and if others don't like what I have to say, it is no skin off my nose.
The problem, as is so often the case in public discourse nowadays, is that it forces people into entrenched opposing views (regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation) and this then has the effect of having two sides shouting Yah, boo, sucks at each other, instead of any meaningful dialogue being achievable.
Even if you are correct about gay rights or racism or misogyny or any one of a number of different issues - if you just judge without any further input you are not going to win hearts or change minds. You just amplify the resistance to your viewpoint.
-
You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.
1. Why the Bible in particular?
2. The only group that I can think of who use the Bible as basis for racial segregation are the white supremacist fruitloop group who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ Christian", who are not representative of Christianity.
3. Trent gives me the impression that he considers himself to be an ordinary bloke who happens to be gay. How he deals with those who are prejudiced against him for this one aspect of him, is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else.
-
How he deals with those who are prejudiced against him for this one aspect of him, is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else.
I'm not sure I agree with you there.
I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.
Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.
If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.
-
I'm not sure I agree with you there.
I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.
Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.
If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.
Agree very much with this, ProfD. I can't decide how Trent feels about the prejudice that he has encountered any more than he can decide how I should feel about the sexual harassment and victim shaming that I've encountered as a woman. But each of us can decide how we feel about bigotry and prejudice and see how we can tackle them in society, starting with questioning our own thinking and prejudices. We need to be clear about what kind of society it is that we want to live in.
-
Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.
To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.
Strange that you find it strange that there are different interpretations of liberalism. Strange also how you seem to have dropped all your other points and continue to focus on Farron's vote on a 10 year old piece of legislation while ignoring his stated views in interviews over the last few years that I have linked to, where he says he supports legislation to prevent discrimination when supplying goods and services and adopted a different position to Peter Tatchell by supporting the Court of Appeal ruling against Asher's Bakery.
Up to you if you want to discard more recent evidence and what you want to believe - I already said you can't be a very good academic if this is your version of looking at the evidence - but you are wasting your time trying to convince me to focus on Farron's voting record from 2007 and ignoring more recent evidence.
Also, I don't think it is strange that some people prioritised freedom of belief or freedom of speech more than other people did in 2007, and that this difference of opinion still exists today.
One of the key back and forth arguments was the extent of religious exemption - with one side sincerely believing that religious belief was not entitled to an exemption and the other side sincerely believing that there should be freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of belief and the right to act on those in certain circumstances. Another issue was the worry that as it was secondary legislation, it had faced less scrutiny and debate.
And the bit that naturally most concerned some Christians was the legislation did not appear to have any safeguards against over-zealous restrictions of freedom to uphold or preach a particular interpretation of their religion, which could lead to expensive litigation, and they therefore wanted such legislation properly debated in the Commons.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70321-0014.htm
People who aren't Christian are also concerned about preserving the same freedoms. Peter Tatchell has been critical of legislation that restricts freedom of speech despite the protection it affords to minorities, but feel free to label anyone who ever disagreed with your current position or still disagrees with your current position as racist, sexist or homophobic...or all 3 if you like.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech
-
I'm not sure I agree with you there.
I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.
Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.
If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.
Actually society is made up of lots of individuals who have individual views on what we subjectively perceive as racist, sexist or homophobic and how we want to tackle these issues. I have no intention of standing shoulder to shoulder with your self-righteous assessments on these issues, given your cavalier approach to evidence and your limited ability to see other perspectives.
-
1. Why the Bible in particular?
2. The only group that I can think of who use the Bible as basis for racial segregation are the white supremacist fruitloop group who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ Christian", who are not representative of Christianity.
3. Trent gives me the impression that he considers himself to be an ordinary bloke who happens to be gay. How he deals with those who are prejudiced against him for this one aspect of him, is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else.
That book has been used as an excuse for all sorts of nastiness over the centuries. As far as racism is concerned Paul told slaves to honour their masters, instead of condemning slavery. The book of Leviticus is an evil tome and should have been chucked down the sewer of history. >:(
-
Actually society is made up of lots of individuals who have individual views on what we subjectively perceive as racist, sexist or homophobic and how we want to tackle these issues.
You are beginning to sound like Thatcher - 'there's no such thing as society' - actually I'm not sure she ever said that. But your implication is the same - that there is nothing greater (i.e. society) than the sum of us individually. I disagree.
I have no intention of standing shoulder to shoulder with your self-righteous assessments on these issues, given your cavalier approach to evidence and your limited ability to see other perspectives.
I said we should stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination. I count myself very fortunate to belong to many groups (white, male, straight) etc least likely to suffer prejudice, but that doesn't mean I should consider myself blind to others that do suffer. And yes I do stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination and I do what I can to ensure this type of behaviour dwindles and dies in our society. And that includes being involved in campaigns to stamp out islamophobia, and also actively putting in place initiatives to remove prejudice and barriers to women entering and being successful in traditionally male dominated disciplines. I mention this as you are a woman and a muslim.
Maybe you personally don't care that I am on your side if and when you suffer prejudice and discrimination - that isn't going to stop me speaking out against it. You don't have to be black to be against racism, you don't have to be female to be against sexism, you don't have to be gay to be against homophobia, you don't have to be a muslim to be against islamophobia.
-
You don't have to be black to be against racism, you don't have to be female to be against sexism, you don't have to be gay to be against homophobia, you don't have to be a muslim to be against islamophobia.
Ah so you were there at Victoria Park in 1978 too?
-
Prof D
I don't dispute that you are well-intentioned. Personally as a Muslim I find some of the sensitivity towards Islamophobia frustrating, especially as some Muslims use it to their advantage to prevent legitimate scrutiny, criticism and in some cases legal action. It also seems to result in Muslims who need protection from other Muslims being abandoned to their fate due to concerns about Islamophobia or cultural sensitivity, not to mention the time and huge costs involved in trying to be seen to be scrupulously fair. Given the lack of resources for social care and the misery this causes, it's frustrating to think of taxpayer's money being spent on some of these minority causes.
As an Asian woman, I feel the same way about how some women and some ethnic minorities use the current-thinking on racism and sexism to unfairly manipulate situations to their advantage at the severe detriment to people not fortunate enough to be part of their protected group.
Also, I learned a lot from facing subtle and overt racism as a kid - not that I am saying that just because I could shrug off an instance when 2 boys walked either side of me, spat in my face and called me a Paki, such behaviour should be allowed to continue. I do think those situations taught me valuable skills and the over-protectiveness in current society means that my children grow up handicapped to deal with difficult situations, which is why it's more useful as a life lesson that there are a couple of children at my daughter's school who tell my 13 year old daughter that they don't like Muslims. Not only is she resilient enough to shrug it off, which I think will serve her well as she grows older, but thinking about why people think this way has prompted an interest in studying psychology. I sometimes find that society needs to be restrained from its good intentions as it can be suffocating.
-
I do think those situations taught me valuable skills and the over-protectiveness in current society means that my children grow up handicapped to deal with difficult situations, which is why it's more useful as a life lesson that there are a couple of children at my daughter's school who tell my 13 year old daughter that they don't like Muslims. Not only is she resilient enough to shrug it off,
Yes but your daughter has your support - not all who suffer discrimination have the support, or the mental well-being, to deal with prejudice. I accept your prescription works for your daughter, but I don't think that is transferrable in all cases. As such I do think that society (whatever that is - whole other thread could be devoted to that) needs to work out what it thinks is acceptable behavior towards minorities. That is not an easy task for any society, given the rapid changes that have taken place throughout the world in the last 50 odd years or so - but it is, if we want to build fairer societies, a task that needs to be faced. My main concern is that entrenched positions don't help the process of getting people to reach new understandings on issues. We need open debate if we are to solve these (and many other) problems.
-
Yes but your daughter has your support - not all who suffer discrimination have the support, or the mental well-being, to deal with prejudice. I accept your prescription works for your daughter, but I don't think that is transferrable in all cases. As such I do think that society (whatever that is - whole other thread could be devoted to that) needs to work out what it thinks is acceptable behavior towards minorities. That is not an easy task for any society, given the rapid changes that have taken place throughout the world in the last 50 odd years or so - but it is, if we want to build fairer societies, a task that needs to be faced. My main concern is that entrenched positions don't help the process of getting people to reach new understandings on issues. We need open debate if we are to solve these (and many other) problems.
I agree entirely - this is a societal issue and not one that should be 'privatised' to the individual, not least because many individuals do not have the resilience to cope, and even if they do they should be being put in a position of having to cope.
You are also correct that these are complex societal discussions, but regardless of the challenges of dealing with them particularly in a rapidly developing societal context that doesn't mean that we should recognise that they are issues for society.
-
I agree entirely - this is a societal issue and not one that should be 'privatised' to the individual, not least because many individuals do not have the resilience to cope, and even if they do they should be being put in a position of having to cope.
You are also correct that these are complex societal discussions, but regardless of the challenges of dealing with them particularly in a rapidly developing societal context that doesn't mean that we should recognise that they are issues for society.
I think that we need to move beyond what is appropriate behaviour towards 'minorities' - after all, women aren't a minority group - and look at what is appropriate behaviour towards each other as people. Our recent discussion on here flagged up the number of men who have been the victims of domestic abuse. Gabriella is right when she says that the misplaced urge to be seen to protect minority groups meant that individuals within those groups were left without protection. But we can't expect that individuals should deal with this alone by toughening up or shrugging it off; the danger there is that we end up with a victim-blaming society where nobody is allowed to be vulnerable or need help. Of course overcoming adversity is good, but people lead happier and more productive lives if they don't have to deal with abuse, of whatever kind.
Here's an interview with someone who undoubtedly overcame abuse and flourished, but I've no doubt looking at this he would have preferred just to have got on with his job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42693383
-
Yes but your daughter has your support - not all who suffer discrimination have the support, or the mental well-being, to deal with prejudice. I accept your prescription works for your daughter, but I don't think that is transferrable in all cases. As such I do think that society (whatever that is - whole other thread could be devoted to that) needs to work out what it thinks is acceptable behavior towards minorities. That is not an easy task for any society, given the rapid changes that have taken place throughout the world in the last 50 odd years or so - but it is, if we want to build fairer societies, a task that needs to be faced. My main concern is that entrenched positions don't help the process of getting people to reach new understandings on issues. We need open debate if we are to solve these (and many other) problems.
I agree that vulnerable people need support and am not suggesting for one moment that what works for my daughter is to be rolled out to anyone else. I’m saying that trying to impose the support that someone less resilient needs onto someone who is more resilient because someone has taken it upon themselves to decide that everyone should be protected for their own good misses the complexity of mental health. I’m not sure what is the correct way to address different individual needs but I disagree with adopting a collective standard that is imposed even when someone doesn’t want to take on the role of victim.
For some people learning coping skills rather than being rescued feels challenging and good whereas being suffocated by protection or being indulged feels abusive and miserable.
ETA - Bringing this back to Farron, I just wish it was possible to have a debate on trying to meet the protection needs of vulnerable people but also discussing why someone might support free speech without reducing the debate to throwing labels at each other and closing your mind to alternative possibilities. As Farron said, I most certainly do not identify with Charlie Hebdo but I can see why they should be allowed to write offensive articles and I can see that achieving a balance between protection from harassment and freedom to criticise is difficult and needs ongoing debate.
-
I agree that vulnerable people need support and am not suggesting for one moment that what works for my daughter is to be rolled out to anyone else. I’m saying that trying to impose the support that someone less resilient needs onto someone who is more resilient because someone has taken it upon themselves to decide that everyone should be protected for their own good misses the complexity of mental health. I’m not sure what is the correct way to address different individual needs but I disagree with adopting a collective standard that is imposed even when someone doesn’t want to take on the role of victim.
For some people learning coping skills rather than being rescued feels challenging and good whereas being suffocated by protection or being indulged feels abusive and miserable.
ETA - Bringing this back to Farron, I just wish it was possible to have a debate on trying to meet the protection needs of vulnerable people but also discussing why someone might support free speech without reducing the debate to throwing labels at each other and closing your mind to alternative possibilities. As Farron said, I most certainly do not identify with Charlie Hebdo but I can see why they should be allowed to write offensive articles and I can see that achieving a balance between protection from harassment and freedom to criticise is difficult and needs ongoing debate.
+1
Prof D, Rhea, and Wiggy take the view that every, and every body who disagrees with them is a "bigot".
It aint that simple.
-
Going back to the case of Farron, and with no intention to repeat what we all already know, an underlying issue here is the extent to which personal religious convictions should be a factor in making political governance decisions in UK politics. As Alastair Campbell famously said in order to shut up Tony Blair, 'we don't do God'. The Maybot is religious but I've yet to see her do any more than just acknowledge she is on a personal basis.
The situation here is very different from, say, US politics where not acknowledging 'God' in some way would be political suicide and where my impression (and I may have the wrong impression) is that the US electorate approve of, and some may insist on, their politicians being theists and expect that they will reference 'God' regularly. When it happens it comes across, to me anyway, as being simplistic and cringeworthy.
In one sense this could be a personal opinion matter but my impression (and again I might have the wrong impression) is that the likes of Farron see it as something other than that: essentially if you subscribe to Christianity a la Farron it is a matter of the authority of Christian doctrine, where he has belatedly acknowledged that is what drives some of his political thinking even if he did lie about this previously.
Hard to see an easy alternative as regards UK politics, in that if a politician here advised the electorate that some of their political decisions would be informed by their theological beliefs it may damage the electoral prospects of them or their party - which is why Farron lied rather than say what he really did believe. Since as far as I'm aware the manifestos of the major political parties don't advocate mixing theology with politics it seems that the likes of Farron are in the wrong job if they can't keep their theology to themselves when it comes to making political decisions on behalf of the electorate - unless they campaigned on that basis from the outset.
-
Prof D, Rhea, and Wiggy take the view that every, and every body who disagrees with them is a "bigot".
Where is your evidence for this?
-
ETA - Bringing this back to Farron, I just wish it was possible to have a debate on trying to meet the protection needs of vulnerable people but also discussing why someone might support free speech without reducing the debate to throwing labels at each other and closing your mind to alternative possibilities. As Farron said, I most certainly do not identify with Charlie Hebdo but I can see why they should be allowed to write offensive articles and I can see that achieving a balance between protection from harassment and freedom to criticise is difficult and needs ongoing debate.
I don't identify with Hebdo either, any more than I agree with the Daily Star, but I accept that people will want satire and pictures of tits.
-
+1
Prof D, Rhea, and Wiggy take the view that every, and every body who disagrees with them is a "bigot".
It aint that simple.
Rubbish.
People disagree with me all the time for all sorts of reasons. I wont in academia where basically the modus operands is to robustly challenge views and therefore there are disagreements all the time. If you can't stand the 'heat' of people disagreeing with you in academia then it isn't the place for you.
Actually I don't think I have even used the word 'bigot' in any of my posts on this thread and rarely, if ever, on this forum.
-
I’m saying that trying to impose the support that someone less resilient needs onto someone who is more resilient because someone has taken it upon themselves to decide that everyone should be protected for their own good misses the complexity of mental health.
What on earth has this got to do with mental health. Someone who doesn't feel able, or perhaps doesn't want to fight back against prejudice or discrimination isn't necessarily suffering from mental health issues. Furthermore you don't have to be suffering from mental health issues to want to be able to live your life with dignity, free from prejudice or discrimination.
Regardless of whether individuals feel well equipped or unequipped to deal with prejudice and discrimination surely we should do all we can as a society to ensure that it doesn't happen in the first place.
-
What on earth has this got to do with mental health. Someone who doesn't feel able, or perhaps doesn't want to fight back against prejudice or discrimination isn't necessarily suffering from mental health issues. Furthermore you don't have to be suffering from mental health issues to want to be able to live your life with dignity, free from prejudice or discrimination.
Regardless of whether individuals feel well equipped or unequipped to deal with prejudice and discrimination surely we should do all we can as a society to ensure that it doesn't happen in the first place.
And people with MH issues are often actually quite capable of fighting back and standing up for themselves.
Prejudice against people with MH is not changing greatly.
-
I think that we need to move beyond what is appropriate behaviour towards 'minorities' - after all, women aren't a minority group - and look at what is appropriate behaviour towards each other as people.
That's right and why I deliberately didn't use the term minorities - rather I talked about groups more likely to suffer prejudice or discrimination, most commonly based on attributes that they have no control or choice over.
-
And people with MH issues are often actually quite capable of fighting back and standing up for themselves.
Prejudice against people with MH is not changing greatly.
True enough but my reading of Gabriella's post was that she was equating people who don't feel able to fight back with having mental health issues. That is a massive generalisation (not the first she has come out with on this thread) and neither helps the broad argument about our attitude toward prejudice and discrimination in society. Nor for that matter our attitudes within society to those who do suffer with mental health problems, who of course may also be a target for prejudice and discrimination in many cases.
-
That book has been used as an excuse for all sorts of nastiness over the centuries. As far as racism is concerned Paul told slaves to honour their masters, instead of condemning slavery. The book of Leviticus is an evil tome and should have been chucked down the sewer of history. >:(
So................You're more of a Mills and Boon person then?
-
True enough but my reading of Gabriella's post was that she was equating people who don't feel able to fight back with having mental health issues.
Eh no. I wasn't talking about people who feel unable to fight back - because we already have a lot of focus on how to help those who express feelings of vulnerability and ask for help.
My meaning about mental health was that some people who feel able to fight back and solve their own problems and develop resilience from doing so might feel constrained, shackled and suffocated by being rescued or molly-coddled by some vocal members of society because those vocal members have decided they know better what is good for everyone else. And what they seem to have decided is that even a hint of challenging behaviour needs to be quickly and decisively shut down using legislation and calling it racism or sexism or homophobia rather than allowing debate on alternative responses that might help people who have an emotional need to not be rescued.
I wasn't generalising - I was looking at how different individuals react in different ways and how some individuals are tired of being emotionally molly-coddled supposedly for their own good. It was the idea that they might develop mental health problems due to sheer frustration at how they have stopped belonging in what seems like an over-zealously risk-averse culture that I was referring to.
-
And what they seem to have decided is that even a hint of challenging behaviour needs to be quickly and decisively shut down using legislation and calling it racism or sexism or homophobia rather than allowing debate on alternative responses that might help people who have an emotional need to not be rescued.
You can only be rescued if you have something to be rescued from, in this case suffering prejudice or discrimination. My view is that we should do every thing as a society that we can to ensure that people don't suffer prejudice or discrimination, in which case there is no need for rescue in the first place
-
I wasn't generalising - I was looking at how different individuals react in different ways and how some individuals are tired of being emotionally molly-coddled supposedly for their own good. It was the idea that they might develop mental health problems due to sheer frustration at how they have stopped belonging in what seems like an over-zealously risk-averse culture that I was referring to.
Strangely I don't believe I have ever met someone who would prefer to suffer discrimination than not to. I don't believe that wanting to be able to live your life free from discrimination somehow equates to molly-coddling as you imply.
-
I find it hard to believe that you have never met someone who chooses to have difficult conversations with people that involves what some may consider discriminatory or prejudiced comments, harassment or hate speech.
I’m just going to repeat the points I made when I joined this thread. I’m pretty sure that in many/ some instances, what looks like racism to you doesn’t feel like racism to me or it may not feel like racism I need rescuing from by shutting down the conversation with accusations of racism. In many instances I get far more from engaging with a racist who is at least willing to explain themselves and by listening to their POV than I get from being rescued. Life becomes more nuanced and interesting.
One of the reasons I come on this forum is to be harassed by Islamophobic comments - looking into the back story, experiences and attempted justification for those comments has opened my mind - because i look into their grievances and in the process come across all kinds of interesting information and perspectives on the internet about the good and bad in various interpretations of Islam.
If people were allowed to express what you would probably consider racist or sexist views on here I would probably find the conversation and figuring out why they hold the views that they do quite interesting. I certainly enjoy listening to some of the Brexit supporters on LBC even though I voted Remain.
-
I find it hard to believe that you have never met someone who chooses to have difficult conversations with people that involves what some may consider discriminatory or prejudiced comments, harassment or hate speech.
That isn't what I said, stop misrepresenting me.
What I said was that 'I don't believe I have ever met someone who would prefer to suffer discrimination than not to.'
Of course there are those that challenge others when they experience prejudice or discrimination - but that is precisely because they'd prefer that it didn't happen and one way to try to stamp it out is, of course, to challenge the perpetrator. They are trying to create a world in which it wasn't happening, precisely because they'd prefer it not to happen.
Do you seriously know someone who would prefer to be subject to a derogatory racist comment when queuing in the post office than not.
Do you really know someone who would prefer to be passed over for a job promotion due to their gender than not.
Do you really know someone who arriving at a hotel would prefer to be refused the room they'd booked because they are gay than not.
Do you really know someone would prefer to have their job application put in the rejected pile because their name is Asian than not.
-
That’s totally irrelevant to the discussion - who has been arguing that anyone wants any of the scenarios you listed?
I have been talking about people making statements, which you equated with suffering prejudice and discrimination. In terms of mollycoddling I have been talking about shutting down conversations by labelling people sexist, racist or homophobic and then once you’ve passed your subjective judgement on them, trying to mock and insult them into changing their position, which results in them being even more entrenched in their position. Why you appear to think it’s a good idea to create a divided and polarised society in this way, I have no idea.
What does Farron, a politician, clarifying his theological position and stating he does not believe in legislating his theological position, have to do with the situations you have listed. Thankfully we have long-standing legislation to deal with the discriminatory actions you have listed so not sure what that has to do with anything.