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

[Brokenme]

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?

Because one view advocates limiting or removing the opportunities and freedoms of another group of people and the other stance doesn't

In the abortion debate, I would imagine pro lifers would be able to apply the above statement to a fetus rather than the pregnant woman.

True, squishy.

Everyone is intolerant about something. The liberal left may be intolerant when it comes to women being forced to carry their rapists' babies to full term, but apparently the really big stuff is the God-given right of JRM not to be called an arsehole.

I would imagine pro lifers would be able to apply the above statement to a fetus rather than the pregnant woman

And they'd be wrong. Actually wrong.

Kajia An example might be on the abortion issue. Without turning this ito a TAIT, women who verbalise that they are uncomfortable with current time limits are leapt upon as anti-women and forced-birthers and yet in a recent yougov poll, 49% of women asked ,wanted the limit to be reduced (average 37% as less men thought so)
It is okay to say in an anonymous survey but to say out loud, in public, is to risk verbal abuse and even to say on MN gets you called all sorts of unpleasant things. Why can we not accept that to struggle with these issues is okay and to voice concerns is okay and that we are entitled to our beliefs and that the law of the land will be adhered to. Why can we not all listen to and learn from each other without the shouting and screaming and name calling.

"Abuse of people for their opinions should not be acceptable."

"Few people seem to understand that free speech lives and dies on defending the most unpopular forms of speech in any given time or society."

Which is it, scatterolight?
You are contradicting yourself.

His opposition to abortion and gay marriage are surely shared by the Pope, and millions of Catholics worldwide. I do not agree with their stance, as is my right, but I would always defend their right to their religious beliefs.
He was asked what his views were and he gave them. Fair enough. My understanding is that he is being lauded for having the courage of his convictions, not admiration for his views per se.

For the record, I think that there is a line and that line is threats of physical violence. Even if I hated the person, I do not think that threats of that nature should be tolerated- especially not on a moderated forum like mumsnet. I've not seen that though. Remember that many posters on here will have made the "morally repugnant" choice to have an abortion, and will find JRM's words deeply insulting on a very personal level even if JRM did not intend it. Probably much more insulting (or abusive???) than being called an arsehole.

The Thought police are out in force again aren't they. There is a creeping censorship and agenda whereby we must all hold the same views.

Where is the censorship?

I know Chester apparently we're not even allowed to think someone is an arsehole in case it offends the precious! PC gorn mad.

Because one view advocates limiting or removing the opportunities and freedoms of another group of people and the other stance doesn't.

Maybe. But this is based on the liberal view that all groups should have the same opportunities and freedoms. If you're not a liberal and you are, as I've used for the purposes of this example, a devout Catholic, that is simply not your view. Liberals are therefore not tolerant of certain religious views and do not support the freedoms of others who disagree with their liberal values (or better, perhaps, only support those which conform with them).

It is a liberal left thing and the legacy to society of new labour. Off message = bigot. 'Bigot' in those terms mean 'you hold very naughty views which make you sub human and taboo, and ideally you shouldn't be allowed to say them under hate speech/some other law or be allowed to vote'. The views are not rationally confronted, the person is personally villified.

Being anything other than vigorously and unconditionally pro immigration for example. Being anything other than vigorously anti conservative and Remain.

Name calling, insults and rejection have become the means of the liberal left to try and shut down anything off message. It has led to surprise votes, it's led to Trump, it's led to Brexit. It patently doesn't work. Those views have to be heard, engaged with, those people engaged with, debated and proved by conversation, argument and logic. You cannot be afraid of debate and other points of view or extend inclusion and respect only to those groups you currently hold as acceptable and worthy or support.

Squishy - I saw in the other thread that you don't seem to understand the concept of abusive language.

When I said abusive language should not be "acceptable" I mean in the traditional sense of being frowned upon in polite society. A murmur of displeasure at the use of words such as "thundercunt". Not in the 2017 sense of getting a knock at the door from plod because you posted sweary words on Facebook.

I reiterate free speech means ALL forms of speech must be allowed.

I'm sure Enoch Powell was expressing his genuine views with his rivers of blood speech.

Doesn't mean it wasn't vile and should have been allowed to be broadcast to the masses.

Well I had an abortion once and have no problem with anyone saying my action is morally repugnant to them. I understand that their repugnance is for the act, not the person. Isn't there a phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner"?

scatterolight So you don't like swearing, but you don't think anyone should be forced to stop? You form an opinion about the kind of person who resorts to that sort of language?

Fine.

Because that's pretty much what most of us who object to JRM's views are saying too - we don't agree with him and we have formed a negative opinion of him based on what he says (and his voting record). No-one is suggesting that PC plod should knock on JRM's door, either.

Doesn't mean it wasn't vile and should have been allowed to be broadcast to the masses.

Case in point.

Why? Because of fear that people who agree would be encouraged? Because it prevents nudging everyone's reality in the direction that the right thinking people know everyone should be made to go?

The trouble is who makes the decision on the right thinking? It involves opinion. It's no different really to fifty years back, not allowing gay people to teach if it became known they were gay (God knows what they'd put in to the minds of kids! Have to hide that!) or go back to pre civil war south in the US, no one being allowed to talk about the wrongs of slavery, can't risk giving people ideas!

Let him say it. And then stand up and say "Right, Enoch, I find that an appalling point of view and here are my reasons why." Share those views. Win the argument.

The censorship is that JRM is being vilified for his views even though he stated he is a Catholic but went on to say that he would not object to any woman's right to have an abortion. You can call anyone an arsehole as long as they have the right to call you one back. It is not clever to silence people who hold different views to you however abhorrent you may find those views. We fought for the right to free speech.

"He holds an unpopular view, which you think he shouldn't have- that is thought policing. You are the thought police."

Eh?

The thought police in 1984 went round thinking that other people should think bad thoughts did they? Or did they, you know, actively police people.

You are condemning op as thought police based on what she thinks.

I think you have not fully thought through the logic of your accusations. That is my genuine belief.

Ilovemillhousesdad - I'm sure Enoch Powell was expressing his genuine views with his rivers of blood speech. Doesn't mean it wasn't vile and should have been allowed to be broadcast to the masses.

You either a) don't understand free speech or b) are a conscious foot soldier for authoritarianism

In the 19th Century I can imagine someone saying the same thing about Charles Darwin "He may sincerely believe this evolution stuff but that doesn't mean it isn't vile and he should not be allowed to share his thoughts with the masses". Same with Galileo and Martin Luther and 1000s of others throughout history whose free speech has been in jeopardy. How do all you free speech cynics think the modern world you live in was even created if we could never question any orthodoxy?

Unpopular opinions in any time or place are the exact opinions that you must die on a hill to defend.

He should not be actually prevented from expressing his views (unless they are views which it is actually illegal to express publicly). But equally, everybody else has the right to express their view that his views are evil/morally indefensible/based on a belief in a non-existent deity/not relevant to the modern world/ out of touch with the experiences of women etc.

It's worth remembering that offending people is not against the law. People have no actual right to demand never to be offended by things/people/opinions. I think Stephen Fry said something much cleverer to that effect, but I can't remember what exactly.

" But this is based on the liberal view that all groups should have the same opportunities and freedoms. If you're not a liberal and you are, as I've used for the purposes of this example, a devout Catholic, that is simply not your view"

A side point, perhaps, but the idea that all groups should have the same opportunities and freedoms is pretty much a central tenet of Catholicism.