Husband has extreme right wing views

[HelpMeUnderstandPolitics]

Not sure if this is the right place to post as it's not an AIBU but more of I think my husband is being and I'm not sure what to do about it.

He's getting caught up in some quite extreme right wing views in regards to migrants. Complains about how they're coming in, being housed in hotels, paid allowances etc. with no checks and how crime rates such as rape are now ten fold etc. He thinks Trump is great 😪 He's very intelligent so I'm not sure how he's managed to get caught up in this extremist view point.

WWYD?

Yes, I already said that above. But that statistic does not equate to 41% of the far right has a conviction for domestic violence.

it is basically saying violent thugs were previously violent thugs…no shit Sherlock.

i could also give you the statistic that was published in Sweden that two thirds of convicted rapists in 2018 were from an immigrant back ground. This does not show the whole picture as it is only convictions and not reported. What do you think of this statistic. Can you acknowledge that if we only look at one sides stats it can give and unbalanced picture?

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764

Its "of those arrested. People behaving in ways which get them arrested are likely to have arrests, charges and convictions for all manner of things I'd suggest. This statistic is frequently being used to smear everyone involved in protests, its usually presented as if almost half of all those present have domestic violence convictions. Its not 41% of protesters, its 41% of those arrested and thats and important distinction.

There is a difference between marching, and protesting, and doing so violently.

People who did turn up last year and protest without violence are unfortunately in the position that the whole event is remembered by the violence it included. We all knew it would turn violent, I’m not sure why you’d have even turned up.

The people putting flags up as part of Operation Whatever It Is Now are IMO also affiliating themselves with those same people.

I’m not Swedish, are you?

The 41% of the arrested thugs were setting my community on fire. Not Sweden’s.

If you have a statistic that confirms that a certain percentage of asylum seekers into this country are committing violent crime, I’m all ears.

I don’t think anyone has ever not said there is a difference between marching and protesting and doing so violently. That is obvious!

Yip me too. Why not try listening and understanding your own husbands views and feelings rather than siding with those coming into our country illegally (you know, against the law that we all have to abide by)

I can't agree with you. This is a democracy and we have the right to protest if we don't like the actions of the state. The possibility that somebody else might do something doesn’t take that away. Remember the protests for whatever you like but you can't expect people not to exercise their democratic rights for fear of someone who they're not affiliated with being arrested somewhere in the vicinity for some kind of disorder.

leave him if you want to let him know I would stick it on Facebook as it is their Bible or get Tommy Robinson to tell him he is their God after all lol and they believe Facebook is fountain of all knowledge and Tommy Robinson is the true prophet lol

Well that’s fair enough.

But if standing with a violent thug, knowing they’re also fighting your cause, affiliates you with thugs - that’s kind of on you.

Maybe exercising democratic rights is more important to many people than the totally inconsequential judgement of strangers on Mumsnet. Who knows.

You cannot compare a centrist viewpoint with with extremist viewpoint and say they are the same. if a violent thug is at a protest but you are protesting peacefully, that does not make you ‘on the same team’ same goes for BLM protesters who protested non violently and the thugs who looted, threw bricks, assaulted police and police animals. Are they the same?

Everyone has the right to peaceful protest, but if a protest isn’t going to be or remain peaceful (and that’s known), it shouldn’t happen and I wouldn’t go to it.

I feel very strongly, for example, about disability. If there was a protest against disability benefit cuts, that I had any inclination was going to turn violent or aggressive - I’d stay at home, because despite my strong feelings on the subject I wouldn’t want to be associated with that behaviour.

Sure but that's not the same thing as saying/implying 41% of people who put a flag up are domestic abusers. Which is what happened when you use "far right" to mean simultaneously anyone who doesn't want open borders, and also a very specific subset of people arrested for violence at a specific event.

I wish all that anger would boil over a bit more frequently when women and girls are raped by people of the same colour and heritage to them. It’s nothing to do with ‘asylum seekers are all rapists’ it’s just a convenient excuse to be racist

The anger comes from the fact that any rape or assault committed by an ‘asylum seeker’ was one that was entirely preventable, and only a series of failures by the government allowed it to happen

Deal breaker for me, I’m afraid.

I've only read the original post and the first update about how they have kids. So apologies if there's more to the story.
But being concerned about the ridiculous levels of immigration at the moment is hardly "an extreme view" I mean if it's causing huge blow out arguements between the op and her husband fair enough but telling op leave the bastard over a difference in opinion when they have children together is the only "extreme opinion" I'm seeing here

They are not “illegal immigrants” for a start - there is nothing illegal about them. This is dehumanising language. And which law are you specifically referring to, that we all have to abide by, as there are currently no safe routes to claim asylum in the UK??

Well we know SOME are because the convictions are coming through, sexual assaults and at least one murder (reporting suppressed as much as possible).

The government has been very reluctant to produce stats on this (I wonder why? Surely if they were that low it would be worth publicising to shut up the ‘far right’?).

The stats from countries across Europe shared upthread are pretty damning- is there any reason to think that the same type of undocumented man from countries that abuse women terribly is not going to end up here? Have you assumed that we only get the nice asylum seekers? Why?

If they are coming for economic purposes rather than as actual refugees, they are illegal.

The 1951 Refugee Convention specifically protects individuals fleeing persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Economic migrants, which it is believed a number of the men on small boats are, are not covered under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

It is not helpful to the conversation to bandy around accusations of dehumanising in response to an accurate term.

Please explain how it’s an accurate term while people are waiting to be processed for asylum, as these people are - no one has any idea how many will be granted, but they are referred to illegal immigrants as a group.

All human rights organisations advise against the use of this term as it is dehumanising, whether you like it or not and I would bet that this terminology has lead to a lot of the bad feeling - the overwhelming feeling that these people are here “illegally” 🙄

This is such an illogical point.

Just because we have homegrown criminals doesn’t mean it’s ok to bring in more.

We will hopefully soon find out the rates of crimes committed by immigrant men from each on the 49 countries in ‘Asia’ (which is the current level of detail provided apparently) from the government.

I’m sure if these numbers are so super low the government will be really keen to release them and silence the ‘far right’ - won’t they.

It’s been repeated many times on this thread that men who come from countries where abuse of women is endemic and extremely violent may not understand how to behave here.

The repeated use of “I didn’t know rape was illegal” as a defence for foreign men on rape charges gives you a little clue as to the sort of men that are coming here. Not all of them , but too many.

I don’t buy into this big conspiracy theory that the government keeps things from us that we “should” know.

I think firstly, the in depth specifics of any legal case are none of my business. We have a legal system, it’s not up to me to manage the intricacies of it - I leave that to the people who run it. Releasing case information does/could also affect that case, and the legitimacy of it.

Secondly, I think they’re right to not tell us the ethnicity of every criminal, because of the fuss it causes when it is “uncovered.” I think them whipping up the already existing racist undertones of “brown man attacks woman” would be a really, really stupid thing to do.

Man attacks woman will do, it’s not like our own are impeccably behaved.

I have assumed that many of the people who cross the sea to reach England, and seek asylum, are doing just that. Seeking asylum.

Of course there will be people that have other motives, and do commit crime. But “sending them all home” involves sending many of them back to persecution or death. And I am not comfortable with that. I don’t think it’s how a reasonable society should behave.

I don’t think the government should waste their time trying to silence the far right. I think they should ignore them, because they’re idiots, and punish them when they commit racially aggravated crimes.

I agree it is not accurate to refer to all people claiming asylum in this country as illegal immigrants.

Some of them are asylum seekers and some are illegal immigrants claiming to be asylum seekers. We can just hope that the speeded up asylum process continues to weed out the illegal immigrants from the genuine asylum seekers.

Some human rights organisations like Amnesty also call for some human rights to be removed from women like me so forgive me if I won’t follow their guidance to the letter. They may have lost objectivity in other matters.