We will not let people who spread poison and hate....

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

I don't know why, but there is something that quite disturbs me about that expession. It makes me feel uneasy and I don't quite know what it means.

[NewLife4Me]

People who spread poison and hate

Erm, what has DC done since being PM.
Seems it's all right for MP's and the press to do this.

In fact these are the only people I've seen doing this.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black

[BeakyMinder]

1. Usually, after a terrorist attack people ask how it was allowed to happen and how can we stay safe in future. They don't generally blame the state of mental health services for eg IRA or Islamic terrorist acts.
   

1. The accused has allegedly been pictured at Britain First rallies, and we know what inspired him because he told us himself when he stood up in court.
   

1. Britain First are, apparently, a legal political party allowed to contest elections. Yet their members are in plain sight all over social media saying the most disgusting racist, threatening things. Remember their candidate for London Mayor, turning his back on Sadiq Khan?
   

How the hell did we end up in this position? Why are these vile terrorist organisations allowed to exist in Britain today?

[Cosmiccreepers203]

I totally agree. But fear is a powerful driver, especially of people who are mentally unstable. He should have been getting the treatment he needed. That was the fault of the over worked and mismanaged mental health services.
However, his rational behind targeting Jo Cox appears to be, in his own words, Britain first. People in certain groups have helped to direct this man's fear and anger towards people like Jo Cox and make them believe that those who sympathise with refugees are traitors.
You are right. He is mentally ill. He could have snapped and killed anyone for any reason. But he chose someone particularly in a very calculated and violent way. He didn't go after a family member or the general public. He went after an MP because of what she stood for.
This is what I mean about dehumanising your enemies. People need to be careful how they portray each other because there are others out there, because of mental instability or other issues, who will take them at their word and be so afraid and angry that they will act out.
I think this blog post sums up what I'm trying to say blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/a-day-of-infamy/

[Roonerspism]

professor I agree. If he was begging for help the day before then he too was completely let down.

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

There are reports that Mr Mair was mentally ill and had asked for help the day before he killed Jo Cox. But he was turned away.

Now as someone who has a few screws loose it is potentially worrying that mental illness could play a part in this tragedy. I know I can blow overly hot every now and then. And I do get a lot more upset about some things than is justified. But so far I have always managed to stay reasonably sensible... (Note the so far) .. But knowing as I do how it becomes possible for someone who is mentally unstable to become isolated from the rest of society I have a sense of how Mr Mair could have got to where he did.

There are hundreds of people in public life who express strong views. And a lot get hate mail. Indeed my MP told me they have had death threats. So far no one else has been killed. It seems this is a tragedy of a mentally ill person as much as anything else.

[Cosmiccreepers203]

Professor I didn't know about her until she died. However, the memories shared about her from those on all sides of the political spectrum talk about how she sought to cross divides in the name of helping those in need, particularly refugees.
This is where I think having binary ideas about people ( looney left vs hard right) is unhelpful. It seems as though she was killed because some was convinced that her compassion for refugees represented a betrayal of Britain. It really feels like the politics of fear and hate. Pigeon holing people based on one or two pieces of information leads to baseless divisions. I.e.- Muslim= terrorist, Liberal= politically correct, Conservative=selfish. It's not true in the real world. It's only true in the media.

[Roonerspism]

Independent reported 5 January this year about a proposed Code of Conduct for German woman to follow to prevent further attacks. It included travelling in groups and not venturing out alone as I recall.

This was one of the final nails in the EU coffin for me. Woman's rights were flung away. A petition was started but there cultural relativism prevailed.

As a mother of girls, I fear greatly for their welfare in the future

[Roonerspism]

I don't know how to post links but there was a tonne on this last year.

Check out the local.de from 26/6/15 for an example.

Or post-cologne attacks when the cologne mayor advised local girls not to dress provocatively lest it led to further attacks on them from migrants.

There were several MN threads on this.

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Rooner...
Source please for your comment abut German girls being told how to dress.

Cosmic..
Obviously I never knew of Jo until she was killed. In light of your comment about the politics of hate actually stopping debate, was she part of a movement that sought to prevent anyone talking about the issues that arise when very different cultures mix on the grounds that multiculturalism is the only allowable idea?

[BeakyMinder]

Jesus H Christ, Rooner, I live in Britain. That happened in Germany. I am not going to vote leave because people got attacked in Germany.

[Cosmiccreepers203]

Ghost is right. I think it is the politics of hate that have got us to the point where we can't discuss cultural differences without being called racists. There are ways and means to tackle the kind of issues that arise when men from different cultures think they can attack western women.
But on the flip side there is a group of people who make it their job to be professionally offended by the wording of discussions, even if it is done quite reasonably and without malice.
Perhaps we all just need to be more sensible and take the pragmatic implications of rhetoric as it is meant and not how we want to hear it.
There should always be careful, reasoned debate on all topics. We shouldn't let inflammatory wording derail it. We shouldn't let people focus so much on the wording that the debate is hard to have. Both attitudes deflect away from real issues.
Essentially just don't be a twat about things.

[GhostofFrankGrimes]

It is the politics of hate, fear and ignorance that have got us to this point. It has slipped more and more into the political discourse in recent years. People need to be more savvy and recognise dog whistle/dead cat tactics when they see it.

[Roonerspism]

With zero results! Nothing! The latest attacks are barely reported because no one knows what to do.

Meanwhile, German girls are told to dress responsibly....

[BeakyMinder]

No, there's no debate at all, it's just swept under the carpet, as the many lengthy Mumsnet threads on this topic testify

[Roonerspism]

The "Cologne problems" wee exactly that. No one knew what to do, so they were denied and brushed away.

The huge issues remain. Debate am be intelligent and sensible. But liberalism means we are no longer able to.

It is this that fuels the far right and it is a huge huge pity

[BeakyMinder]

The Calderdale convictions this morning, together with those in Rochdale as well as the Cologne problems

The word convictions is a reminder that our justice system is capable of tackling these problems. Rochdale was a wake-up call - cultural relativism is on its way out.

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Again I agree but I am not sure how to address some pretty thorny issues. The Calderdale convictions this morning, together with those in Rochdale as well as the Cologne problems seem to point at a divergence of culture between freedom of individual choice and a more prescriptivist culture that seeks to denigrate those who do not conform to its prescriptions.

Sadly, such events show there is a foundation of truth to say that young women are in danger in areas where there is a large number of people who's culture is entwined with notions that a respectable woman is always covered up and that a woman who shows any skin is a prostitute.

As always it is a matter of how to use measured language to separate emotion from recognising a problem.

[Cosmiccreepers203]

That's the thing. Once you start using phrases like 'loony left', or start comparing people to Hilter, you're no longer debating openly but seeking to derail a discussion with overly emotive rhetoric.
I don't see a problem with asking people to debate in a more reasoned and measured manner. I don't think anyone is saying no to free speech. They're just asking people to think about the way they phrase their argument.

For example: it is fine to say that you are pro-Brexit because you are concerned about the impact of immigration. It is inflammatory and deeply wrong to say that immigrants are bad people and if we don't leave Europe our freedom, children and lives will be in danger. Be against immigration. That is fair enough. Just don't uses racist, bigoted, inflammatory language to make your point.
An opinion doesn't have to be phrased offensively or with hatred or malice to make the point.

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Cosmic,
In answer to your question, I suspect it is because it takes a lot of courage and maturity to be able to do what you ask.. As Ego says, there are voices not being heard... Probably those who feel the same as SoftToys but who don't have the ability with words...

Pity that SoftToys left the debate as I think they (note gender neutral just in case) made a very useful contribution...

[Cosmiccreepers203]

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to ask adults to debate intelligently and respectfully. It's about not de-humanising the people who disagree with you. People who do this are giving themselves permission to treat the group who oppose them as animals.

Why is it so hard to disagree with someone but not make them an enemy? I think the message from all the tributes to Jo Cox is that we need to end the politics of fear.

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

My DP used to work with a chap from Iran. One day when the Ayatollahs were at their height, he took the family out for a pic-nic.. They drove into the desert.. (There is a hell of of desert in Iran). When the car ran out of fuel, they got out and walked. Two years later they fetched up in England and he managed to get a job where DP met him at a local health authority in the admin department.

He was so grateful of the help this country gave him.

[supersoftcuddlytoys]

Oh dear, this is all sounding like some awful, social studies lecture now.. I'm so done with all that.... Sorry - not interested.

[supersoftcuddlytoys]

Who decides? The law decides, who else? Calls for violence are illegal – rightly so. Everything else is fair. Including what's stupid and wrong, this must be allowed and put out there to debate. Because it cuts both ways.

The Muslim cleric preaching to hundreds of men. That any woman going out in public not covered up, is asking to be raped and is no better than 'uncovered meat'? (I didn't make that up btw) Ought to be arrested. What is that other than hate? The talk radio show host recommending rescue boat crews crews to ignore people from capsized vessels struggling for life in the sea - should be arrested also. Common sense, non-political judgement has to come into it.