Women's safety in Europe after Cologne

[DavidTCDaviesMP]

I have been invited onto Mumsnet to discuss the situation for women in Europe following the attacks in Cologne, and the challenge we face in Europe in trying to help millions of mainly young men, who are arriving in Europe from cultures which treat women very differently. I believe this is an issue which needs open discussion by political leaders yet is swept under the carpet. David Davies MP

Rachel Ruysch's lovely picture. One of the few Dutch women flower painters 17th - 18th c. I admire her work, remarkable woman,brilliant colour, and she was symbolist for every flower there is a meaning.
Still Life with Flowers on a Marble Tabletop, Rachel Ruysch, 1716 in Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

That painting is exquisite. Thank you! And for the music last night

Lumela Taboo is just the right word from David Attenborough. How did it get so very taboo to discuss immigration? Canada and Australia don't get tied up in such moral knots about it. Does the Nick Cohen book have a good analysis of it? Such a very clever move by the regressive left it seems, to tie it to racism and silence so many.

Sir D talks huge sense about the silence on world population growth and how it undercuts so many attempts to solve problems. If only all women had access to contraception...but it is women's freedom versus male vested interests in denying it again.

Puzzled I now expect to be told that mass immigration will be good for the shipbuilding industry.

But in all seriousness, they are clearly desperate.

I now expect to be told that mass immigration will be good for the shipbuilding industry

Nah, doesn't work I'm afraid ... it's a fairly old ship, which I believe was being used as a hotel off the coast of France until recently

Of course, if the Swedes really run out of space I guess they could start commissioning new ones??

Only slightly off-topic... Researchers at Harvard University have developed a series of "implicit association tests" which are supposed to reveal prejudices which people may not be conscious of. If you are interested in finding out whether your are more (or less) prejudiced about race/gender/religion/etc than you think you are, you can try some of these:
implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

I've just taken the test Longway . "No automatic preferences ". Had a look at the Blue eyes /brown eyes documentary earlier and that was fascinating.

My pleasure January

"Ditto IMO a minimum salary for bringing in a spouse. "

This has caused a lot of problems for women who have married people in places like Canada and the US though; even though their husbands might be highly skilled people who would have no integration problems, they cannot bring them back to the UK because they are a part-time worker etc.

I think the spouse visa rules need to be more flexible and take account of the non-EU spouse's earning potential and career record etc.

Of course, the main reason why this rule was brought in was because some people were blatantly taking the piss and taking advantage of the previous, generous spouse visa policies. As Christopher Caldwell says, the price of diversity is diminished liberty. Everyone's right to bring in a spouse ends up being curtailed because a few people are taking advantage of the rules. I think postal voting will probably be severely restricted in the near future too, for similar reasons.

"Lumela Taboo is just the right word from David Attenborough. How did it get so very taboo to discuss immigration? Canada and Australia don't get tied up in such moral knots about it. Does the Nick Cohen book have a good analysis of it? Such a very clever move by the regressive left it seems, to tie it to racism and silence so many."

The Nick Cohen book does not really talk about immigration issues--it mostly talks about the hard-left intelligentsia getting "cozy" with unpleasant foreign regimes etc.

If you want a good (and very balanced, non-hysterical) analysis of the immigration debate and the taboos about it, try Paul Collier's "Exodus." www.amazon.co.uk/Exodus-How-Migration-Changing-World/dp/0195398653

It approaches the migration topic in a way that is about as free from bias as anything I have ever seen, and talks very honestly and calmly about how migration works and the benefits and risks of migration. Paul Collier is an economist but writes in a really approachable way and is one of those economists who talks about human issues, like social capital, trust levels and so on. I am always recommending this book to people whenever this topic comes up!

These threads are about women's safety in the UK in the face of potential overwhelming numbers of immigrant men from mysoginists cultures.

This vital debate is being shrieked down by the constant yapping of a poster who does not live in the UK and confesses to an ignorance of Islam.

Anyone not agreeing with a rigid and cliched dogma is branded 'far right.'

Mumsnet, is this a hilarious irony bypass or are we in a parallel universe?

I am reporting my own post as I am genuinely interested in your editorial policy (which in over a decade I have understood to remain firmly against censorship) and why this debate appears so threatening?

"These threads are about women's safety in the UK in the face of potential overwhelming numbers of immigrant men from mysoginists cultures."

Yes, that is the core issue particularly since UK women have spent over 150 years gaining the right to be treated equally, to own property, to work, to wear any clothes thy like etc. We will not lose those gains. We will not let it happen. If some men cannot control themselves then they need to stay at home and only leave when accompanied by a woman to supervise them. Let them have a taste of their own medicine.

'Anyone not agreeing with a rigid and cliched dogma is branded 'far right.'

...yes, or racist or xenophobic.

This happens on a daily basis and the reporting the of the accusations and the disruptions and derailing seems to be met with silence from HQ.

I feel we have been left to cope with the best we can without support.

I see no point in starting a new thread.

I agree Inkanta too much favouritism and double standards on here.

Before the Thread closes... Berthe Morisot, The Cradle, 1872, Musée d'Orsay
Imensely intimate and tender.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berthe_Morisot one of "les trois grandes dames" of Impressionism alongside Marie Bracquemond and Mary Cassatt At the age of 23 she exhibited at the salon. A huge salute for this remarkable lady please.

There is little to be gained in engaging with someone so hostile, even in the face of kindness. Posters like myself who have been practically shrieked at. The debate will not stop it will just continue elsewhere, it is happening all over the world because we are needing to ask the question "what kind of world are we creating and what kind of world do we want?".

These kind of questions are not the easy ones. Information from both sides of the argument need to be brought to the table, looked at discussed and a way forward found. Looking at the information available doesn't amount to tacit agreement with one view or another. No one persons experiences are more valid or 'right' than another's, just different. We have all brought different things to the debate. I've noticed that when I've brought my own positive stories of how my neighbourhood and sons school work, the poster in question was not interested, it seems she was more interested in negative stories. It even came down to her asking me to comment on something I'd had no time to watch due to working at the time repeatedly and accusing me of agreeing with it without seeing it, even though I hadn't commented at all, either way.

I've seen some quite aggressive posters before but not to this extent. Even in step parenting there appears to be more balance!

There's been much good debate, much critical thinking on both sides, but derailed often by somewhat hysterical, accusatory attacks. Which is a shame, the debate needs to continue, calmly and constructively. Let's hope we can -MN usually works it out!

And lovely, touching painting, I love the Musee D'Orsay.

"I agree, too much favouritism and double standards on here."

Yes, MoreShabby MN has definitely allowed one particular poster and her two or three acolytes to continue when other sites would have suspended the main culprit. This was not "a difference of opinion" but rather an aggressive campaign to use up space, continuous criticism & questioning and goading others in the hope they would get suspended. MN's interpretation of its own guidelines has not been followed.

I have certainly felt goaded as never before, even on other threads which have been very emotive. I have had to check myself before posting many times, as I wanted to remain part of the debate and not get suspended. I have engaged with Emily often only because I can't bear to see gross misrepresentations left to stand. For my pains I have been called bigoted, xenophobic and far right. I didn't report the first two but I did the last one. It took 3 reports to even get a reply and that was that it was being left to be rebutted on the thread. Apparently I can stand up for myself. Well, I can, but what if some reason I hadn't been able to?

As I said before, debate on here has tended to become polarised: I have found myself letting comments go that I might otherwise have challenged because I've run out of energy dealing with comments from the opposing pole.

I found it very interesting that Emily referred to "framing" the debate in one of her recent posts. This indicates to me that she knows exactly what she is doing. It is exactly the strategy she has been trying to use all along. By continually misrepresenting via shameless "rewording" of what other posters have said, her goal has clearly been to "frame" the whole discussion as having a right-wing orientation.

"In the context of politics or mass-media communication, a frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29

A quick check-in to say that I have been continuing to follow the threads although a heavy workload precludes posting (just too tired). Well done to everyone for keeping the discussions going.

kesstrel I agree. It's been insultingly transparent, and laughably predictable.

Still, you live and learn.

I do think Mumsnet should have a policy of banning posters who so obviously and continually misquote others. It is extremely dishonest, and inimical to genuine debate.

January, if I was agreeing with you, Idon't think you'd be too fussed about where I live. Regardless, I am a UK citizen who will be living in the UK again, so I quite you think I don't deserve a say is a mystery.

As I've said before, I'd rather say I don't know much about Islam than make generalisations about that have little substance.

Yesterday Grace said this,

'If we require more eg doctors then we need to increase the numbers within our own medical schools - not rob these highly-prized individuals from their own regions.

What we so not need are another ten chicken shops in every high street'.

Noone picked up on the prejudice and stereotyping in this statement apart from me. Wen comments like this go unnoticed and seem to be tolerated, I do think that reveals a worrying level of animosity toward refugees.

Bill even agreed,

'We need to continue attracting those people, but yes we don't need more chicken shops'.

Does it not show a limited imagination and a lack of insight to reduce the immigrants that are not highly skilled to 'chicken shops'?

Bungo made some more balanced comments about immigration, stating the value of immigration, which was good to see.

When Bill shared a link about an asylum seeker that had raped someone, Grace stated,

'Sounds like another one of those "credit to the system" immigrants'.

We then had 'There's an awful lot of them about', from moreshabby.

Again, these kind of comments try to lump immigrants together, to blacken the name of many because of the actions of a few. There is an exaggeration of the facts, because the truth is, there isn't a lot of 'them' about, but repeatedly sharing only articles on asylum seekers that rape or sexually attack, creates and inflames a picture that this behaviour is far more typical than it is. Immigrants are more likely to be a victim of crime than to commit a crime. That doesn't mean the crimes they commit are not significant or orrying, but it does mean that trying to amplify concerns is unhelpful. Doing so is characteristic of the far right and there are the same efforts here to inflame and instil fear. I see far right rhetoric here and I see it being ignored and unchallenged time and time again. When statements like tose made by Britt and Grace are ignored or not seen as anything particularly troubling, xenophobia is plainly in evidence.

Moving, wat you have been seeing is debate. It is the kind of debate hen clearly xenophobic and prejudiced views are expressed at times. They will be challenged. In 'real life' you would find the same. If I made that 'chicken shop' comment in real life I don't think it would go down well at all.

'one particular poster and her two or three acolytes'

It really is a difference of opinion Britt, albeit a rather strong opinion from me. I repeat that many people in real life would find some of your views intolerable and stringently challenge them. I don't know why you don't expect that on here too and think people should be banned for challenging you.

Sporting, disagreeing with someone and stringently challenging them on certain points is not 'aggressive.' 'Hostile in the face of kindness.' You accepted my apology with comments on 'bullying', even after people took the piss out of me for alleged mental health issues sporting, so I don't know why you were suprised that I was wary of your 'kindness.'

There has been thread after threadon these issues placed in 'talk' or 'chat.' Don't be surprised when people come forward to do so. Don't be confident that telling them they are mentally imbalanced will frighten them away.