Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Kaija · 08/09/2017 13:06

"The censorship is that JRM is being vilified for his views"

That is not what censorship means.

Kaija · 08/09/2017 13:08

"Not in the 2017 sense of getting a knock at the door from plod because you posted sweary words on Facebook."

This doesn't happen though does it?

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 13:09

^ What Eolian says. Free speech works both ways.

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 13:11

If you're willing to "die on a hill" to protect JRM's free speech, you should also be willing to die on that very same hill to protect the free speech of the poster who called JRM a turbocunt.

NataliaOsipova · 08/09/2017 13:12

People have no actual right to demand never to be offended by things/people/opinions.

This is the nub of it, I think. You've been libelled? Someone has threatened you? You have legal recourse? You're offended or you don't like what someone has said? So what. And that's how it has to be in a free society.

Kaija apologies - don't mean to offend Catholics. I'm just trying to highlight that liberalism is not synonymous with tolerance. I suppose what I meant was that if you are a Catholic and believe in the sanctity of life, then you would not believe that people should be free to choose an abortion.

charlestonchaplin · 08/09/2017 13:24

Brokenme You don't understand the meaning of the word 'genuine'. That seems to be where your problem lies.

Kaija · 08/09/2017 13:27

It's a broader church than you may have been led to believe, Natalia.

www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-miller/pro-choice-catholics_b_6526314.html

NataliaOsipova · 08/09/2017 13:32

I'll read that, thanks Kaija

histinyhandsarefrozen · 08/09/2017 14:08

So much confusion and poorly thought out arguments in this thread. It's so depressing and makes me wonder at the education people are receiving today.

I know. I can't believe that people actually think calling JRM an arsehole is an attack on free speech. It IS incredible. And worrying.

Original poster
Brokenme · 08/09/2017 14:12

Sorry been at work and several pages have been added. Lots of interesting debate. I'm definitely not the thought police as one poster suggested and to clarify for charles I'm using the word 'genuine' in the context many on here and in other outlets have done. The use of this word is at the crux of my OP. For those who have said they protect his right to state his beliefs, I don't disagree at all. However I've heard many people saying they would vote for him (if given a chance) even though they fundamentally disagree with him. The virtue of being genuine (no matter how much you disagree with him) is higher than what he believes and by proxy what you'd be voting for if he was to run for leader. This is what I still don't get.

OP posts:
histinyhandsarefrozen · 08/09/2017 14:13

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.

Er...no it isn't.

It looks like a few people are very confused by this though. Calling someone an arsehole is not censorship.

Original poster
Brokenme · 08/09/2017 14:14

*held higher

OP posts:
Original poster
Brokenme · 08/09/2017 14:33

As an aside I wonder how he justifies repeatedly voting for things such as the bedroom tax. Surely protection of the poor and vulnerable is at the core of his strongly held beliefs...

OP posts:
Anniegetyourgun · 08/09/2017 14:36

Are they perhaps confusing censor with censure? He's certainly not being censored because he not only said the thing but it was broadcast. That's how we know what to complain about. And then we censured him for it. Swearing optional.

LellyMcKelly · 08/09/2017 14:41

Really, he's not being censored. The opposite - he's been allowed a national platform to discuss those views. He's perfectly entitled to think what he wants, he's perfectly entitled to say what he wants. I am perfectly entitled to find his views abhorrent and to say so. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. All it means is that you won't be thrown in jail for your words (unless they are threatening or invite violence).

babybarrister · 08/09/2017 15:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LairyMcClary · 08/09/2017 15:43

he virtue of being genuine (no matter how much you disagree with him) is higher than what he believes and by proxy what you'd be voting for if he was to run for leader. This is what I still don't get

People are looking for an honest politician. Is that really so strange?
Are you so used to the idea that honesty and conviction of thought are noble qualities?

I fundamentally disagree with him on everything, I think he's a total tit. And I wouldn't vote for him. But I can understand why people admire the honesty and why it might make them want to support him.

Kaija · 08/09/2017 16:36

Very apt tweet on this from glosswitch today:

Man: "You shldn't decide what happens to your body" = free speech
Woman: "You shldn't decide what happens to my body" = liberal intolerance

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 17:42

Being genuine and being bigoted are not mutually exclusive.
However, making a statement considered by some to be bigoted/controversial is not evidence of being genuine.

I suppose we will find out in time how genuine a man he is, by whether he stands by his claims of having no interest in being PM, or whether he does a Gove.

Kaija · 08/09/2017 18:35

"However, making a statement considered by some to be bigoted/controversial is not evidence of being genuine"

This. But it gives the appearance of being genuine. Indeed he may have calculated that this appearance of authenticity would outweigh the extremity of his views in terms of garnering popular support amongst his target audience, as it did notably for Trump. In any case he has clearly been more than happy to ignore church teaching when it comes to matters of social justice for example - he's a long way to the right of the pope on this.

Logans · 08/09/2017 21:37

"The only reason that some of us who strongly disagree with JRM's views also admire him for having the balls to hold them, is because when you compare him to many other MPs who will say whatever they are pushed into saying, actually it is a virtue which needs to be recognised in 2017.".........Not at all sure about this virtue thing. The great con trick perpetrated by Trump/Farage et al was to say things so outrageous and repellent that nobody could believe they were doing it for political gain. They were. And it wasn't virtuous. JRM may or may not be following the same playbook.

^ This.

clairewilliams999 · 08/09/2017 23:41

I'm also wondering whether he couldn't really be bothered being pushed into the next Tory leadership campaign so scuttled his own ship, he is a very very sharp man and would be fully aware of the likely consequences of making these views known. And if it didn't put people off him it only puts him in an even stronger position

Toadinthehole · 09/09/2017 04:17

squishysquirmy

You have utterly missed the point. Judging a person for expressing a point of view is one thing. Prosecuting them is quite another. The former is not an infringement of free speech, although it may reveal the judger as a bigot. The latter always is. Society right now (in the UK at least) deems it appropriate to have laws that limit free speech in this way. Like I said, they are the modern equivalent of blasphemy laws, ie, views sufficiently away from the mainstream to need suppressing. The difference is that they are used far more that the blasphemy laws have been for centuries. This is not the hallmark of a tolerant society.

Tinycitrus · 09/09/2017 09:14

It bothers me that other people seem to want to decide what opinions are appropriate for me to hear.

Social media does seem to create echo chambers of opinion so that when someone expresses an alternative opinion outside the orthodoxy they must be shamed and cast out.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 09/09/2017 09:47

Who wants to decide what opinions you hear? Can you give some examples? Do you feel MPs don't have a platform? Do you feel they are not allowed to speak? In what way has hem or others been shamed and cast out?