Arlene Foster suing Dr Christian

[MissyB1]

Apparently he tweeted that she was having an affair (without any proof), and the way he put it was a spiteful little jibe about her being a “sanctity of marriage preaching woman” adding “it always comes back to bite them on the arse”
Now I understand he might have an issue with her as I think she was against same sex marriage. But this man always strikes me as an arrogant twat and a nasty piece of work.

I tried to post the link but I’m such a technophobe! it’s on BBC news website

Nah. This is weird

@Branleuse

Nah. This is weird

Oh ok, that's that then!

I hope CJ has the book thrown at him. I’m frankly shocked at the amount of doctors who shout their mouths off about all sorts on social media, it’s so unprofessional and brings the profession into disrepute.

Not to mention stupid - it’s all there in black and white for people to sue you! (Or cancel you at a later date for having views that are out of date....)

Bran.

I marched with the children against the Tory coalition with the DUP. You are correct they are, well. Shit for women.

Christian thing has been talking mysoginist bollocks for years. He has had a platform on telly as a nice friendly clever kind doctor. He's gay and that seems to make him think he can talk shit about women and girls with no come back. And he has an audience. People are listening.

Arlene F is female. She was the first minister of Northern Ireland. No I don't agree with her religious stance on stuff. But as the leader of one of the counties that form the UK she was in a very public role. Not just that.

The judge said
'He told the court the tweet had called into question her suitability to hold the office of first minister at a time when delicate negotiations were continuing on the re-establishment of the Stormont executive after three years of deadlock.'

That's not very fucking trivial is it. Have you seen the recent news. It's always been and continues to be a very very sensitive situation. Whatever your feelings on her and NI. What he claimed was not trivial, undermining essentially her entire credibility, trustworthiness, integrity, honesty.

He did this casually I have no doubt because she's female. Tbh my personal feeling from seeing him on telly going years back. Is that he genuinely does not like women.

So good for her.

If we say that some women deserve to get to stick it to a mysoginist man in court but not others. Then that's not good.

I'm very very very pleased she won this. Very pleased indeed.

I continue to strongly disagree with her on pretty much everything else.

Analogy.

If there's a man in the pub groping women. And one turns round and knees him in the nuts. I don't give a shit at that point who she is or what she stands for. I give her a round of applause.

If there's a man in the pub groping women. And one turns round and knees him in the nuts. I don't give a shit at that point who she is or what she stands for. I give her a round of applause.

👏

Teawamatu 'feminists that only support naice women are not feminists'.

Well done. In my view, women who tell other women they're not feminists aren't feminists. By your argument you have a duty to defend my right to my views as much as you choose to defend Arlene Foster's. So come on sister. Tolerate a difference of opinion from another woman. Don't leap to tell her she's not a feminist. Its ugly. If you can defend Arlene Foster you can defend my right to disagree with crowing about her victory.

Because I said I don't like Arlene Foster doesn't mean I agree with Dr Jenson. I can't stand him. But I won't crow about Arlene Foster's win. I don't like her at all either. Its not cowboys and Indians. It is possible to have the discernment to dislike both people in a dispute isn't it? Nuance.

I had a friend in the Socialist Workers in the 80s who had a vote on whose side to be on in the Iran/Iraq war. Choosing who the good guys are. And that's how we fucked up the Middle East foreign policy. Its just a bit more complicated than that.

@Branleuse

But arlene foster seeks to undo and restrict womens rights. These arent just private opinions either. Shes a politician. Shes anti feminist, so why applaud her?

Jeez, Branleuse, no one is applauding Foster qua Foster, they are applauding the outcome of the case. In very simple language: spreading malicious nasty lies on Twitter can cost you dearly. This is a good thing. It is good that it is getting a lot of publicity. Possibly fewer women in public life will have lies about them spread on Twitter. Not that I am holding my breath

But I won't crow about Arlene Foster's win.

I think everyone here is crowing about Jessen's loss :) Doesn't matter who he lost to, he deserved it.

@NiceGerbil

Bran.

I marched with the children against the Tory coalition with the DUP. You are correct they are, well. Shit for women.

Christian thing has been talking mysoginist bollocks for years. He has had a platform on telly as a nice friendly clever kind doctor. He's gay and that seems to make him think he can talk shit about women and girls with no come back. And he has an audience. People are listening.

Arlene F is female. She was the first minister of Northern Ireland. No I don't agree with her religious stance on stuff. But as the leader of one of the counties that form the UK she was in a very public role. Not just that.

The judge said
'He told the court the tweet had called into question her suitability to hold the office of first minister at a time when delicate negotiations were continuing on the re-establishment of the Stormont executive after three years of deadlock.'

That's not very fucking trivial is it. Have you seen the recent news. It's always been and continues to be a very very sensitive situation. Whatever your feelings on her and NI. What he claimed was not trivial, undermining essentially her entire credibility, trustworthiness, integrity, honesty.

He did this casually I have no doubt because she's female. Tbh my personal feeling from seeing him on telly going years back. Is that he genuinely does not like women.

So good for her.

If we say that some women deserve to get to stick it to a mysoginist man in court but not others. Then that's not good.

I'm very very very pleased she won this. Very pleased indeed.

I continue to strongly disagree with her on pretty much everything else.

Analogy.

If there's a man in the pub groping women. And one turns round and knees him in the nuts. I don't give a shit at that point who she is or what she stands for. I give her a round of applause.

I think people should be able to question any politicians fitness for office. People do it all the time with johnson and starmer dont they? Its generally a bit of a free for all.

'But I won't crow about Arlene Foster's win'

Crow???

Odd language.

I find some of these views troubling.

What if she had been mugged? Her home broken into? Sexually assaulted?

Would her getting justice be similarly met with 'well I don't like her so I don't get why anyone's pleased'.

What if she was physically attacked by a man who hated women having power?

What if she was physically attacked by a man who didn't agree with her religious views and especially around abortion?

Do you have a line? Where is it? Why is it there?

She at the time was the first minister of a country that is part of the UK. A misogynist man in England libelled her in a way that at other times would be upsetting but at that time undermined her position in a country that has serious and complex, and seemingly escalating issues.

And like I say I marched against the DUP. But yes of course I'm pleased she won.

He didn't question her fitness for office. Her policies. Etc.

He libelled the first minister of Northern Ireland.

Branleuse

I think people should be able to question any politicians fitness for office. People do it all the time with Johnson and Starmer dont they

But thats not what this particular thread is about, the title is very clear, it says ‘Arlene Foster suing Dr Christian’ and most here have been trying to do just that

As an aside it’s disturbing seeing the view of ‘only people with political views I approve of are allowed justice’ play out in front of us here.

I think people should be able to question any politicians fitness for office. People do it all the time with johnson and starmer dont they?
Its generally a bit of a free for all.

But he didn't question her fitness for office.

He tweeted to his many followers on Twitter that she was having an affair and accused her of beings hypocrite in light of her faith.

There are many issues with which I disagree with AF but I'm happy to address those issues directly.

There is no justification for spreading malicious and untrue accusations.

It serves only to weaken both your position and bank balance.

As for the criticism of AF I think it shows a lack of understanding of NI politics. As per my paragraph above I'm not a supporter but she is within the party quite progressive, a fact that has probably ended her tenure as party leader and resulted in a successor who is more "hard line".

That's not a win.

He has a go fund me page live, he doesn't seem well mentally.
I'm no fan of Arlene and her crew they are heartless wicked and living in lala land however she was correct to bring the case, hopefully people will think before they ink in future.

I profoundly disagree with her views on abortion and her determination to deny even civil marriage to gay couples (what churches do is their own business, imo). And it is frustrating to see how this case has deflected attention from another very important high court case in Belfast which has been brought by human rights activists to secure abortion services for women, which are still not properly provided. But she deserves to exist as a woman in the public eye without having her character and morals traduced by some fucking idiot like Jessen. That's why most of these posts are broadly supportive of her.

This - once we start selectively applying the law, and saying only "nice" people, or people we approve of or like, are entitled to justice and legal protection, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

I couldn't see a post on it, apologies if already mentioned, but he's set up a go fund me.

It describes all his good intentions around lgbt rights and hiv, gay conversion, highlighting that it's still common in religious communities.

He also says he had major mental health issues during that time.

Unfortunately reading it sound like he feels he absolutely has the right to say what he wants to someone who has a faith. Because he's bigged himself up and criticised her faith. Before mentioning anything about mh.

(My close friend has an ex who has mh issues but uses as an excuse to say what he wants / has no self reflection and was /is emotionally abusive, no consideration of how his behaviour impacts the children. Ironically also a Gp. The pattern is so similar.)

I in no way condone views of anti abortion or homophobia, but there's no excuse for the sadly typically male attitude of narc god complex like this.

@Branleuse

But arlene foster seeks to undo and restrict womens rights. These arent just private opinions either. Shes a politician. Shes anti feminist, so why applaud her?

Because I'm not 5 years old and am able to look at a situation with nuance and consideration. Just because I dislike Arlene doesn't mean that Jessen didn't defame her and carry on in a disgraceful arrogant fashion. Because I'm not 5 years old I'm well able to dislike Arlene and still see that she was badly wronged in this instance and deserves justice for this particular situation. It's part and parcel of not having the thought processes of a very small child.

I'm here to cheer for the judge who assessed a libellous bully and decided it is not okay to make up lies to try and smear a woman in public life.

I don't generally assess how much I agree or disagree with a woman who has been attacked before deciding whether I will defend her against an attacker. Maybe that makes it clearer.

If you saw someone you really disagreed with and disliked getting beaten up, would you really not do anything to help them? Just because of your differences in opinion ?

Maybe not, that's your prerogative.

The point is Jessen sees himself as a progressive and on the right side of history (unlike those nasty bigot feminists) but when it comes to women he's the same old, same old: if you want to bring a woman down, call her a slag or call her ugly. It's so demoralising that women are still having to fight on this level, and men doing this is often nasty but rarely illegal, so it's satisfying seeing one of them crossing a legal boundary and having the woman be able to take him down. He's still shameless enough to expect other people to pay the damages, rather than dip into his own wealthy pockets.

In addition to his well publicised offensive tweets eg about child marriage I have seen him say some very dismissive, unpleasant things about religion, I suppose I could say Christianity as that is the preferred religion for a kicking. Nothing wrong with being atheist or agnostic but religion is one of the protected characteristics. Working in the NHS it is absolutely a part of the job to respect people's religious beliefs. I know someone who nearly died last Autumn and asked for the last rites which gave great comfort, and despite terminal cancer has largely thrived and continues to live a very full life which he absolutely credits to the blessing of God. So seeing a Dr actively goad and be unpleasant about religion makes me very uncomfortable, how would he behave to a dying patient wanting to discuss his spiritual beliefs?
Of course that is another reason why he was so happy to pounce on rumours about AF and I'm very pleased she was able to stand up to him and give him a long overdue lesson in respect.

CJ didn't "question" anything about AF. He said she had been unfaithful in her marriage. A marriage, and religion, that are clearly very important to her.

He then lied and lied to the judge about his mental health and - appallingly for a medical doctor - attempted to use this fakery to get off his conviction. Which, thankfully, the judge saw right through.

As PPs have said, we can applaud a woman fighting back against an arrogant, misogynistic man without supporting her political views.

Actually I did applaud her personally - though not her policies - for taking him to court and standing up to his behaviour. That takes courage because women in the public eye, especially in political power, are subject to huge amounts of abuse and are in physical danger.

Also, she’s an elected representative. I don’t agree with her views but others do, mainly for religious reasons, and want her to represent them. Those views are dying out, and that’s through a process of debate and discussion.

I agree with the beating up analogy. A woman being attacked by a man needs help and support to fight him off and I wouldn’t question her views before deciding if she needs that help. Any woman in her situation has a right to fight, should win, and in doing so is doing something to help all woman - even if her political policies don’t.

Excellent points, Fanny, but I'd be amazed if CJ has worked in the NHS in recent times. Not well enough paid, I'd imagine.

Has anyone else read The History Man, by Malcolm Bradbury? Campus novel published in 1975. There was a very good adaptation of it on the BBC in 1981, with Anthony Sher and Geraldine James. The central character is a sociologist at a new university on the south coast. He is an absolute monster, who pays lip service to women's rights and smashing gender stereotypes, but like so many other dyed in the wool sexist men was delighted to take advantage of the Permissive Society to have a lot of sex, while also taking it for granted that the women around him would take care of all the dreary domestic and childcare work. I have no doubt at all that if Bradbury had been writing now (and had been prepared to risk being 'cancelled') Howard would be a keen proponent of queer theory and gender ideology.

One of the things I thought Bradbury portrayed particularly well was the vile bullying of people with a different point of view, not subtly, but in full view, because of course by having a different view these people have rendered themselves the enemy - they merit no respect. This is the Wikipedia description of one key plot element.

Howard's zero tolerance concerning non-Marxist, especially conservative, thinking makes him persecute one of the male participants of his seminar who wears a university blazer and a tie (which make him look like a student out of the 1950s) and insists on being allowed to present his paper in the traditional, formal way, without being interrupted and without having to answer questions before he has finished his train of thought. In front of the others Howard calls him a "heavy, anal type" and what he has prepared for class "an anal, repressed paper", without considering his own apparent hypocrisy any further. In the end he succeeds in having the student, a "historical irrelevance", expelled from the university.

Prescient stuff!

Yes @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g, I saw the series and read the book. As you say, very prescient of Bradbury.