Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[floo]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Gordon]

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.   

 

[Rhiannon]

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?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

+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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.