Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

When did any view expressed make you 'genuine' and not bigoted

259 replies

Brokenme · 07/09/2017 21:13

I'm really struggling to get my head around people saying Jacob Rees-Moggs views are ok because he is being 'genuine' and expressing himself. Where do we draw the line? Is it ok for politicians to be racist as long as they are 'genuinely' expressing their views. AIBU to be completely appalled by this stand point?

OP posts:
2rebecca · 09/09/2017 10:18

Bigoted is a value judgement. Generally people who describe other people as bigoted don't realise how intolerant that makes them appear.
I like politicians to state clearly what they stand for be it left or right wing or middling. Then you can pick the view closest to your own and vote for it.
The politicians I dislike are the ones who say one thing, and produce a manifesto saying one thing and who then do something else completely different when in office when they have a majority and don't have to compromise, or who compromise unnecessarily.

meg54 · 09/09/2017 10:27

Genuine, as in expressing his own view rather than his political parties official stance.

DJBaggySmalls · 09/09/2017 10:31

JRM says one thing and does another. You only have to look at his voting record to see that. He consistently votes against human rights, children and the poor.
He may 'genuinely' believe abortion is always wrong but his actions call into question his genuine Christian beliefs.

squishysquirmy · 09/09/2017 11:23

Toad I do not want JRM to be prosecuted for his opinions. I have never said anything that even comes close to that, and I have not seen ANYONE on here calling for that.

I HAVE seen people forming a judgement on JRM based upon what he says and what he does (not just on this issue, but the bigger picture too).

Do you think there is anything wrong in forming an opinion of a person based on what they say and do?
Do you think there is anything wrong in judging a politician on their record whilst in power?
Because I don't.

Voicing disagreement with someone's opinion is not the same as suppressing or censuring that opinion, as many on here seem to think it is.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 09/09/2017 12:48

Generally people who describe other people as bigoted don't realise how intolerant that makes them appear.

A. Gays shouldn't marry
B. What a bigot
C. Guys you are both as bad as each other!

A. Muslims should fuck off
B. What a racist twat
C. B, you are so intolerant.

I find this argument very amusing. (By amusing I also mean really stupid. I am being genuine though so I think you'll like it.)

Tinycitrus · 09/09/2017 15:39

He is expressing views held by millions of people. Are they bigots too?

histinyhandsarefrozen · 09/09/2017 15:50

I wouldn't necessarily use the word 'bigot' about his forced birth beliefs. necessarily. I have plenty of other non-complementary words I could use though.

So what? Am I not entitled to have an opinion?

Tinycitrus · 09/09/2017 16:19

I just find it irritating when words such as 'bigot' are chucked around as if they apply to anyone who holds views that are different.

People have compared his views to racism and drawn parallels with Enoch Powell - and yet his views are a fundamental part of Catholicism and for that matter Islam too and as a democracy we can allow many views on these important matters to be sired in public but in the end it is in the hands of the politicians we choose to elect.

Online and in certain circles however there is an expectation that certain liberal values are simply not up fir debate and to state an alternative view is worthy of being g labelled a bigot and even 'no platforming' such as what happened to Germaine Greer.

hairymaryquitecontrary · 09/09/2017 16:30

just find it irritating when words such as 'bigot' are chucked around as if they apply to anyone who holds views that are different

They apply to those whose views are bigoted. He said that gay people are sinners who should not be allowed to get married. Is that not bigoted?

ChelleDawg2020 · 09/09/2017 16:30

A bigot is defined as "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

Rees-Mogg seems fairly tolerant of people holding different opinions to him, his job would involve a lot of contact with them and I don't recall seeing him shout others down (certainly less than many MPs!) or denying people have the right to an alternative opinion.

People seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "bigot" - to many people, it means someone who has views which are opposite to their own, which is kind of ironic given the definition of the word...

ChelleDawg2020 · 09/09/2017 16:33

He said that gay people are sinners who should not be allowed to get married. Is that not bigoted?

Not in itself. Only if he denied the right of people to have different opinions to him. Discussing things is not bigoted, refusing to discuss them might be.

You could argue his views are "offensive" or "reactionary" or "moronic" or anything else. But the view itself, in isolation, is not "bigoted".

hairymaryquitecontrary · 09/09/2017 16:38

Not in itself. Only if he denied the right of people to have different opinions to him

He'd like to deny people to have the same human rights as him.

Tinycitrus · 09/09/2017 17:01

But he pointed out that right to abortion and gay marriage is law. This is what Britain has decided on and he was not trying to challenge that. He simply stated his personal view and it was refreshing that he was honest knowing it would cost him personally and politically.

I don't agree with him, I don't like his values but his views are not unusual-they are held by many religious people.

2rebecca · 09/09/2017 19:56

IT isn't surprising that most people with strong religious beliefs see homosexuality as a sin though. I'm an atheist now but many religious texts are quite clear on the deviancy and ungodliness of homosexuality and the superiority of men. If you have strong religious beliefs it's not surprising you believe this stuff. I used to have strong Christian beliefs myself. Most monotheist religions are incompatible with tolerance. If you don't believe the one true way you go to hell. I find Christians who pick and choose the bits of the bible they like odd They're just making up their own religion rather than accepting it's nonsense.

Toadinthehole · 09/09/2017 22:03

Squishysquirmy

Toad I do not want JRM to be prosecuted for his opinions. I have never said anything that even comes close to that, and I have not seen ANYONE on here calling for that.

I HAVE seen people forming a judgement on JRM based upon what he says and what he does (not just on this issue, but the bigger picture too).

Do you think there is anything wrong in forming an opinion of a person based on what they say and do?^
Do you think there is anything wrong in judging a politician on their record whilst in power?
Because I don't.

Voicing disagreement with someone's opinion is not the same as suppressing or censuring that opinion, as many on here seem to think it is.

I don't think it is either. So, what's your response to my point, ie, the UK currently criminalises certain kinds of free speech?

You may not want a traditional Catholic to go to prison, but do you think it's acceptable for the law to allow him to be sent to prison? Do you think it's appropriate for you to be sent to prison if you condemn his views in sufficiently strong terms? Because that's what UK law currently provides.

What do you think about the chilling effect this has on free speech generally? I think the UK has become a place where people take offence extremely easily. But because this has happened gradually, it's not generally acknowledged.

As I've said twice previously, the UK has modern equivalents of blasphemy laws: not the hallmark of a tolerant society.

annandale · 10/09/2017 06:40

I believe we must allow people to express their views, yes. Look at Leadsom - if a journalist hadn't asked her some needling questions and printed the answers, she might actually have become prime minister Shock

However, she remains a member of the Cabinet. I have no doubt that JRM will be reelected with an increased majority. He's an MP, I am shocked that anyone thinks it is ok because he has no power. Of course he does, he's part of the government, and I can't vote against him myself. More people with his views will be encouraged to become MPs. The Polish restrictions on all abortion very nearly passed. It's not ok to call him a bigot. He's not a harmless truthteller though. Rights are fragile, that's what he's telling us. We have them on sufferance.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 10/09/2017 08:40

He is expressing views held by millions of people. Are they bigots too?

I don't think views cease to be bigoted just because a lot of people hold them, do they?

Guys, a lot of people hate blacks, they can't ALL be racist.

squishysquirmy · 10/09/2017 09:19

"You may not want a traditional Catholic to go to prison, but do you think it's acceptable for the law to allow him to be sent to prison? Do you think it's appropriate for you to be sent to prison if you condemn his views in sufficiently strong terms?"

The law does not allow Catholics like JRM to be sent to prison for expressing their views.
The law does not allow for people to be sent to prison for calling JRM an arsehole, a turbocunt, or a creepy little shit.

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

You CAN get into legal trouble for making serious threats against a persons safety. eg, if you used twitter to offer a cash reward to anyone who ran over a public figure you hated. But, tbh, the technology might be new but this kind of law isn't. Pre internet, if I sent a letter to someone threatening to murder or rape them, I would expect to get into trouble for it if caught. If my letters were less nasty, but I posted 100 a day I would have been breaching anti-harrassment laws. If someone took out an ad in a traditional paper encouraging others to kill/maim/rape someone/members of a specific group, they would have faced consequences if caught.
The media has changed, but doing these things via email, twitter or other social media is just as bad as doing them via more traditional forms of communication.

So if "free speech" includes the right to incite violence and make serious threats against a person then no, we don't have it. But we've never had that right.

Tinycitrus · 10/09/2017 13:22

I worked with nurses who would refuse to deal with anything related to contraception or abortion. It was a matter of conscience for them. Racism is not the same Hmm

hairymaryquitecontrary · 10/09/2017 13:32

I worked with nurses who would refuse to deal with anything related to contraception or abortion. It was a matter of conscience for them

They should not be given jobs where it comes up, and if they do they should be fired from them.
Your religion is no excuse for not doing your job.

SerfTerf · 10/09/2017 13:39

I think it's nostalgia for a time when a wider range of views were acceptable and English eccentrics were plentiful. Just superficial nostalgia. Even people who actually wouldn't have liked being in 1972 or 1957 UK with the politics and the social attitudes then, can get a daft hankering, I think.

I'm not sure how else you'd explain it. Some of the people I've heard express positive things about JRM made me do a double take.

Tinycitrus · 10/09/2017 13:40

Well - thats the real world. jRM's views are not unusual and he is acting in accordance with his faith.

This is very different to acting on racist views. I don't think any religion has racism at the core of its faith and nobody is racist as a matter of conscience.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 10/09/2017 14:11

You clearly didn't understand the simple point, tinycitrus. Hmm

I was saying that just because many people may think a thing doesn't mean it isn't bigoted, racist, wrong, whatever.

Tinycitrus · 10/09/2017 14:39

The simple point is bigotry is intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Many of the people I know and have worked with have managed to hold these views and tolerated other views.

Racism is absolute intolerance of someone due to their ethnicity -which is quite different.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 10/09/2017 15:56

No. You didn't understand the point.

You said: He is expressing views held by millions of people. Are they bigots too? As though if millions of people hold a belief then they can't be bigots.

The number of people who hold a belief doesn't affect whether a belief is bigotted, stupid or racist or not.