Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

[floo]

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.

[Robbie]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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 .

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[floo]

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. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.