"Right or Left, I want No Part in Extremism" - Milli Hill

[WhereDidSummerGoAgain]

A thoughtful article by Milli Hill today.

https://millihill.substack.com/p/right-or-left-i-want-no-part-of-extremism

I can't help but find myself agreeing with her.

I know there's been a lot of debate on here about Kelly-Jay and whether she supports the far right.

Milli's article links to a Twitter post by Tommy Robinson showing an event and his inner circle. Kelly-Jay is there, dressed in a Union Jack.

This is pretty conclusive now, isn't it? You don't go and hang out with racists like Tommy Robinson and pals in times like these if you don't support them, surely?!

Milli's stood up for Kelly-Jay before, but this is a step too far for her, and for me too.

Just wondering what others think? This really doesn't look like a mistake this time.

She must have got a lot of stick, still everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Yes, but then legally they aren't marriages. If I wanted to cohabit with several men (gross) or share a man with several other women (also gross) and hold a ceremony asking Hecate to bless our union, there is nothing the law can say about that. As the law doesn't legislate (to a point) people's private lives or what ceremonies they hold. Sex outside marriage for example isn't the States concern.

So the only other way to stop people having "non legally recognised marriages" would be to legislate more heavily what happens in religious ceremonies in general. And that would open a can of worms that would also affect other religions in other ways that lots of people wouldn't like.

Religious marriages aren't recognised at all. There has to be a civil ceremony and marriage certificate. Religious settings can apply to be able to do this. Most Cof E settings do. Only a few Mosques have registered to do this, most just perform Mutah marriages which aren't recognised in British law. A separate civil service has to be performed to make it legal. This leaves women in a precarious situation as the man can just divorce her according to Sharia law. It's an extremely controversial area.

That’s not correct re weddings in CofE churches. All priests in the Church of England are Registrars by virtue of their office. Weddings conducted by them are legal and don’t require a further civil ceremony. CofE parish churches don’t have to apply to hold weddings, as they are all automatically registered as places where a wedding can take place, with the caveat that the wedding must be solemnised by a CofE priest.

Yes you're right. They are registered to perform a legal marriage and a certificate. There's a process.
many religious marriages are recognised in the UK, but only if they meet strict legal and civil requirements alongside the religious ones, which include giving notice of marriage at a register office and having the ceremony in a registered religious building officiated by an authorised person. If the civil procedure isn't followed, the marriage is not legally valid, which has significant legal consequences regarding property and inheritance rights.

Yep, I knew someone (non Muslim) who was convinced that you had rights under a "common law marriage" if you had been cohabiting for a long time. I think there are Mumsnet posts where people believe/believed this as well. You really don't have any legal rights associated with marriage unless you are actually married. Its why women who have children without getting legally married are putting themselves in a vulnerable position. Especially if they give up work to look after the children. I feel.like there should be frequent public service announcements of this (Mumsnet is pretty good at it). But, short of not allowing people to cohabit and have babies with people they are not legally married to (or not allowing them to give up work if they aren't married) there is not a lot you can do. People are free to make their own decisions even when those decisions disadvantage them. With regard to religious ceremonies that aren't legally valid, that's also the case. But there should be good public information around this. And of course the law around coercion etc applies.

I knew a woman who didn't want a (legal) marriage only a religious ceremony because she actually wanted to keep her assets seperate to her husbands. So it's not always women being vulnerable. But it's true that women are more likely to be negatively impacted financially by childrearing and that's why legally recognised marriages are designed to give some financial protection. But you can't force women or men to do that. At least not in this country without radically changing our values and the relationship between state and private life.

For example. Are articles like this annoying? Yes. Can we stop them? No, at least not without allowing people to make decisions about my life as well.https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/23/polyamory-new-way-to-love-men-women-sex-relationships-elf-lyon

I don't think its ever funny when feminist voices are shut down, even if I don't agree with them. Milli got bullied, ha ha.

I never saw the replies

Was it really that bad? I mean for her to feel she's got to delete her account.

If she can't handle the cut and thrust of robust debate with women that's on her, there was no bullying.

I dont like seeing anyone feeling like they need to get off social media, but its a bit rich claiming to be bullied when she named three women in her substack.

She was happy to make other women targets.

Maybe I am wrong, but a big part of this is people are totally unwilling to do two things.

(1) When they share their opinion, like Milli did, make it clear that it's not the word of god, it is their best attempt to get to the truth. That they're hoping that people will read and agree, but that they're open to people reading and disagreeing, and that if people do disagree with good reasons then they are open to changing their mind.

(2) Following through with (1). Actually meaning it when they (we) say they have an open mind. If your views change, then be up front. If other people's views change then celebrate their bravery and open mind.

Surely Milli's viewpoint was well beyond the pathetic "leftists good, right wing bad" position, because you can't be gender critical without seeing big flaws with the left. But perhaps she is wedded to that idea despite the one TQ+ exception?

IMHO she should perhaps be on twitter saying "I don't like Robinson and am genuinely fearful about where this shift to the right may lead. Musks speech at the UTK rally was a disgrace. We need to learn lessons from history and we cannot let fascism grow. On the other hand I was wrong. Half the country, including plenty of women who are only on the streets due to the proven sexual assaults caused by illegal immigrants in hotels near their houses, are not all hard right fascists. They have genuine concerns and the difference between us is simply a question of relative priorities with regards different concerns and the way forward to resolve them."

We need to try so converse with our opponents, recognize their arguments, learn and apologize when we are wrong.

Half the country are not extremists, by definition, and IMHO it is extremist to label ordinary people with mainstream views as extremist. Extremist is when you refuse to debate your opponent or smear them unfairly.

The irony of you saying no one is afraid of being called a racist or a nazi when you're literally twisting your balls together to get people to stop calling TR one. If it's so meaningless why are your pants in such a twist over it?

If you want national unity, TR is an obvious enemy to it given he continually shares fake news to sow division.

I'm going to stop engaging with you now as you have shown you don't want to engage properly with any evidence or points, you're just here to shill for TR.

Same and thugs in flags shouting christ is king isn't any indication those on the march supported that

I agree jamie. Its similar to the Trans situation in that there's an official narrative about how a political policy works, and the reality for different people.

I don't think your description of what Milli Hill wrote has much relationship with what she said

Why don't you go on Twitter and say
"I don't like Robinson and am genuinely fearful about where this shift to the right may lead. Musks speech at the UTK rally was a disgrace. We need to learn lessons from history and we cannot let fascism grow."?

Where is the "half the country" comment coming from? It sounds like something copied and pasted from debates about American politics (where half the country voted for Trump) than something relevant to the discussion here. Half the country definitely dont support Tommy Robinson. And I haven't heard anyone suggesting half the country are fascists. Let alone MH.

I want people to be scared of being called racist, because being racist is bad and being called racist is bad.

Because of people like you being called racist is no longer a bad thing, it is a meaningless thing. Well done the left.

April 2025 on Ipsos

Two in three (67%) Britons believe the total number of people entering the UK is too high, with 43% stating it is "much too high."

That is why I think half the country support the UTK march. Give or take, 40% to two thirds of the country believe Tories and Labour have allowed too much immigration, which suggests half the country support - t least to some extent - the rally.

And yet you called me the biggest racist ever earlier in the thread no? 😂 Purely for trying to explain to you that the presence of a black person doesn't mean an event can't be categorically far right. You really have just posted nonsense after nonsense, get back on X.

You can't just take a sample size of 1k people and extrapolate it to the entire country, particularly giving weight to people's opinions that are being chased by absolutely fake news and garbage posted by TR and the like. Why can't you just use the actual data of how many people attended?

This feels a bit like one of those irregular verbs: "I engage in robust debate, you make other women targets..."

I'm not sure what you mean by "far left" here.

Are you referring to, for instance, how certain people erroneously call you far-right if you don't support gender identity theory?

I can understand frustration with that, but if you are referring to political or economic power, the so-called "far left" were never actually in charge in the UK. Tories had a 14-year-old government, and they are not far-left by any stretch of imagination. The UK has a capitalist mixed economy, not far-left socialism or communism.

How can you say that when we have a far left prime minister destroying the country right now?

As in all the Muslims shouting 'Allah Akbar' at marches.
You really are wearing blinkers. I don't think you even know what a secular democracy is.
Please don't engage with me again