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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To say a massive well done to the people of France...

553 replies

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 07/07/2024 19:33

For telling the far right National Rally to fuck off to the far side of fuck!!!

So relieved!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
wagram · 09/07/2024 00:17

myotherdogisadonkey · 08/07/2024 06:19

@Anonym00se well said. We weren't occupied by fascists because many many brave men and women fought them and lost their lives .The French were invaded and occupied by fascists in case you forgot. My French pal who resides here has a mixed race child and was bloody terrified when it looked like the Far Right might win because she knows what happens to women and children of different races under the Far Right. She was scared for her relatives !She has heard it from elderly relatives who fought them.So yeah I hate fascists and will oppose them everytime they try and spread their hate . No pasaran!

Hope your pal feels better for having voted in a bona fide antisemite.

Freyaaaa · 09/07/2024 00:56

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 08/07/2024 23:26

Are 37% of the French population racist? I don't know, it would certainly seem that 37% of those who bothered to vote are that way inclined. Of course, some will not be intelligent enough to understand what they're voting for, but the National Rally aren't exactly subtle about what they stand for, so I think that number must be fairly small.

And of course, they may not see themselves as racist. People rarely do, but if you vote for a racist party with at least a basic understanding of the decision that you're making, I think that makes you racist, yes.

And yes, I absolutely agree that it is sensible to understand the factors that contribute to far right radicalisation, and we need to try and tackle these so that those who are susceptible are less likely to get sucked into this kind of thing in the first place, but deprogramming those who have already been radicalised probably requires specialist intervention. I'm not sure that mainstream society normalising their beliefs is going to make them change their minds.

After all the terror attacks Paris has had, some killing over 100 people at a time, they have a right to be concerned about what's happening in their country.
And calling them racist because they don't want mass immigration is just ridiculous.

whistleblower99 · 09/07/2024 06:34

Reform did really well in my area. They beat Labour in many of the constituencies. I would not vote for them simply because of policy and I’m centrist. Lib Dem being the only viable vote. However, there have been MANY illegal immigrants temporarily housed locally. Young men who don’t have much regard for the law and hassle teenage girls in school uniform. Young girls reduced to mere objects. It’s easy to turn a blind eye to why people may vote this way - until you see the consequences. I imagine the people who did vote for them over Labour are fed up of seeing what has happened.

TwigletsAndRadishes · 09/07/2024 08:48

It’s worth mentioning that there are about half a million American, Canadian, New Zealanders and Australians living in the UK. That’s more than the number of asylum seekers we’ve had in a decade. Reform voters never mention this particular demographic. I wonder why?

Probably because the bulk of them of them are in the UK temporarily, either because they are doing that antipodean thing of decamping to Europe for a few years as young singles, before going back home, or because they've come to the UK to fulfil a specific job contract, usually a professional one. As an overall cohort they are generally well paid and will certainly be net contributors to our system rather than net beneficiaries, which is what it boils down to in the end. I'll hazard a guess that virtually none of them claim nor are eligible for any sorts of in or out of work benefits, UC or housing subsidies.

I'll also hazard a guess that virtually none of them arrive with several children and immediately go to the top of the council's priority for housing list.

Many will be here because they have dual citizenship and many will be here because they are married to Brits. But most importantly, they will all speak fluent English and be culturally similar to us, so they will be able to work, communicate, contribute, integrate from day 1.

Putting genuine asylum seekers aside for a second, we simply cannot afford to continue a system where it costs the country far more to have any newly arrived immigrant or economic migrant in it than if they were not here at all, all things considered. It's all very well coming up with figures that show that immigration overall apparently makes us richer, but how many ordinary people in this country feel rich compared to 20 or 30 years ago? Those figures include the contributions of rich investment bankers and other very highly paid professionals who buy houses and use private medical care and private education, as well as the (many more) minimum wage workers who make as much, if not more, in in-work benefits than they actually earn. Why do you think over 50% of Big Issue sellers are from the Roma community in eastern and central Europe? Do you honestly think that selling the Big Issue alone is so lucrative that they chose that over working full time in Sainsburys for example?

Saying that immigration has made us richer overall is a rather disengenuous exercise in smoke and mirrors and you really need to unpick the evidence for that. It's like looking at the average housing price in Poole in Dorset. It's completely skewed by the cost of houses in the very small and very exclusive enclave of Sandbanks. Poole is allegedly one of the most expensive areas in the whole country after London, to buy a house. But if you strip out the properties in Sandbanks and just look at the rest of Poole, suddenly it isn't quite as it first seems. The average value plummets and much of the local community is not at all affluent. The same is true of looking at the financial benefits of mass immigration.

We've become richer on the back of the gig economy for far too long, fed by a constant supply of cheap foreign labour. It's a house of cards where only a small cohort at the top actually feels the benefit. Ordinary people lower down in the pecking order certainly haven't benefitted. They can't see a doctor, can't get a house, can't get a secure job with a decent salary. They can't compete, so is it any wonder they give up and go on 'the sick' or refuse to work more than 16 hours a week? It simply doesn't pay for them to do otherwise and the system has been set up to enable them to do exactly that.

We've bred a whole generation of people who feel hopeless and helpless and yet lazy and entitled at the same time, and it's all been of our own doing. The rot started the day Tony Blair entered us into the Maastrict Treaty and despite leaving the EU, the flow hasn't stopped and the damage cannot be undone. The problem is that newly arrived immigrants are generally hungry and hard working and prepared to do the jobs that others don't want, but over time they get more accustomed to the standard of living in the UK and become as entitled and complacent as everybody else, so we fill that gap with yet more immigrants. It's madness.

We have more than enough economically inactive people in the country already. There is something very fucked up with our system when millions of low skilled people who survive wholly or partially on benefits can turn their noses up at doing certain jobs, but other people from much poorer countries can arrive to take up those same jobs and make them not only economically viable, but lucrative and worth the effort. Especially if they can bring a large family with them and automatically be eligible for in work benefits, child benefit, free healthcare, free education and subsidised housing. Suddenly this low paid work as yet another Uber Eats man on a moped doesn't seem so badly paid at all, does it? Especially compared to what they'd be earning in Kurdistan or Bangladesh or Kosovo.

Givemethereins · 09/07/2024 09:40

OvaHere · 07/07/2024 19:39

Is hard left any better than hard right? Not convinced.

Yes because there is no such thing as a 'hard left' party. Whereas the hard right are clearly visible, and promote racist, misogynistic, homophobic white men turned populist politicians that are swaying young people to vote for Andrew Tate fan boys. Or can you tell me what you think. 'Hard left' actually is?

Teddleshon · 09/07/2024 09:45

Mélenchon is hard left.

FinalCeleryScheme · 09/07/2024 09:46

Givemethereins · 09/07/2024 09:40

Yes because there is no such thing as a 'hard left' party. Whereas the hard right are clearly visible, and promote racist, misogynistic, homophobic white men turned populist politicians that are swaying young people to vote for Andrew Tate fan boys. Or can you tell me what you think. 'Hard left' actually is?

All those things are true of the far/hard left too. Extremism is a bad thing wherever it comes from.

millymollymoomoo · 09/07/2024 09:49

What it shows is that electoral systems as in the U.K. here, are not representative of votes

and frankly, fed up that anyone who is ( rightly ) concerned about unsustainable uncontrolled mass immigration and in particular influence of Islamism, being labelled far right, when actually the concerns are valid.

the left is far bigger threat to society.

LordPercyPercy · 09/07/2024 10:00

Or can you tell me what you think. 'Hard left' actually is?

Pro-Putin, for one thing. See Mélenchon as an example.

BIossomtoes · 09/07/2024 10:06

the left is far bigger threat to society.

How does that work?

Ladygirl · 09/07/2024 10:14

It is very important not to tolerate fascists. Wolves in sheep’s clothing They will tear up the normal rules once they gain power. They have to be beaten every time they raise their ugly heads. Read some history!

1dayatatime · 09/07/2024 10:25

"Or can you tell me what you think. 'Hard left' actually is"

Anti semitism for another thing. See Melanchon and Corbyn as examples.

1dayatatime · 09/07/2024 10:28

"Or can you tell me what you think. 'Hard left' actually is"

Economic destruction for yet another thing. See Venezuela as an example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisisinn_Venezuela#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20marked%20by,massive%20emigration%20from%20the%20country.&text=The%20situation%20is%20believed%20to,since%20the%20mid%2D20th%20century.

LordPercyPercy · 09/07/2024 10:31

Or Stalin, if you like.

1dayatatime · 09/07/2024 10:35

Or Pol Pot.

It seems too many people's historical knowledge only extends to the GCSE module on Nazi Germany.

Freyaaaa · 09/07/2024 11:17

Ladygirl · 09/07/2024 10:14

It is very important not to tolerate fascists. Wolves in sheep’s clothing They will tear up the normal rules once they gain power. They have to be beaten every time they raise their ugly heads. Read some history!

Yes! We must not tolerate anyone who criticises

  • mass immigration
  • terrorist attacks that have killed 100s at a time
  • decades of government, police and social
services covering up predominantly British Pakistani rape gangs who targeted mainly white children as young as 10

-Housing shortages

  • etc etc etc.......

When will you all learn to stop criticising these things! You either accept it or you're a racist!

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:35

ToWhitToWhoo · 08/07/2024 21:02

Hungary under Orban is certainly NOT trying to defend .'European values (rights for women.... freedom of religions)' and neither was Poland until they recently turned round and defeated the Law and Justice party.

Orban has explicitly expressed his aim of creating an 'illiberal democracy' and 'breaking with the dogmas and ideologies that have been adopted by the West' - i.e. he is not in favour of modern European values. As far as 'women's rights', he is promoting large families and restricting attitudes to abortion. As far as 'freedom of religions', he is strongly anti-secularism and wants to impose Christianity on education and society. He is anti-gay-rights on similar grounds. He subscribes to and promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros.

The former Polish government had very similar views; thank goodness they were finally defeated.

But he is in favour of European values. Modern European values encompass such ideas that transwomen are women (they're not) and that race is the cause of all bad outcomes. For example, I have just read an article in my union's magazine, about black women having the worst outcomes when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth. This is so. But it is not clear that colour is the problem, though culture is touched on. There are other factors at play including such things as FGM, attitudes to women in various non-European cultures. The assumption is that bad outcomes are because of racism, which means that other reasons, which could be dealt with, are not looked at.
European values include the rule of law, not of men (or gods); justice for all (regardless of status, sex, creed, race); that property cannot be alienated without good legal cause. But these values are not held universally. And that is our problem.

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:38

zendeveloper · 08/07/2024 11:45

Great story.

She would not have been able to obtain a spousal visa to the UK at 14 years old, even if they were married a hundred times in Pakistan.

Possibly brought in as his sister?

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:44

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 08/07/2024 23:36

You were replying to me and I wasn't suggesting that I wanted to silence the right at all.

True. And I apologise.
'Why on earth should anyone be tolerant towards those with morally repugnant views?' was your entirely reasonable comment.

But we have to tolerate such views and let them come out into the air unless we want them to go underground, when they will emerge at a later date worse than before. To that extend, censorship is counter-productive.

Papyrophile · 09/07/2024 11:47

Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution from 1966-76. There was a brief thaw in the repression during the 100 Flowers period of 1956-57.

Anonym00se · 09/07/2024 11:48

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:44

True. And I apologise.
'Why on earth should anyone be tolerant towards those with morally repugnant views?' was your entirely reasonable comment.

But we have to tolerate such views and let them come out into the air unless we want them to go underground, when they will emerge at a later date worse than before. To that extend, censorship is counter-productive.

Not tolerating a view doesn’t mean silencing it. We can hear the views and challenge them. That’s neither tolerating nor silencing them.

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:52

Anonym00se · 09/07/2024 11:48

Not tolerating a view doesn’t mean silencing it. We can hear the views and challenge them. That’s neither tolerating nor silencing them.

Well, yes. But toleration does not mean acceptance, it just means putting up with it existing.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 09/07/2024 12:12

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:44

True. And I apologise.
'Why on earth should anyone be tolerant towards those with morally repugnant views?' was your entirely reasonable comment.

But we have to tolerate such views and let them come out into the air unless we want them to go underground, when they will emerge at a later date worse than before. To that extend, censorship is counter-productive.

I absolutely agree that we need to let extreme views come out into the air so that they can be exposed and challenged appropriately. However, I disagree that they should be "tolerated".

I suspect that our disagreement is largely one of semantics. For you, it seems that "tolerating" extreme views amounts to allowing free speech, which I fully support.

For me, tolerating implies acceptance, which is a very different thing.

When extreme right wingers demand more "tolerance" from the left, I honestly don't think they are talking about freedom of speech, which they already have in abundance. They are talking about their views being accepted by mainstream society as valid and respectable. Those of us who find their views morally repugnant will never be able to accept their views as "just another way of looking at things" and we will always feel obliged to speak out and condemn them. That isn't contrary to the principle of free speech, it is the very essence of it.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 09/07/2024 12:14

Grammarnut · 09/07/2024 11:52

Well, yes. But toleration does not mean acceptance, it just means putting up with it existing.

But we do put up with the far right existing. They have existed for decades. So why are they complaining that we are not "tolerant"?

I would suggest that it is because they want more than simply being allowed to exist. They want the veneer of respectability. Which they don't deserve.

OP posts:
DeerOhDear · 09/07/2024 12:17

Sorry if it's been mentioned but again the Jews in France are extremely worried about this melechon character just as they were worried bout corybn and we had rabbis writing letters pleading with the UK not to vote him in.

This is extraordinary.
Absolutely extraordinary.

And heartbreaking.

Swipe left for the next trending thread