Right-wing press perpetuating hate over Widdecombe

[YourHateIsShowing]

The Daily Express and others claiming the reaction to Ann Widdecombe’s death has somehow “exposed the left” as hateful, is nonsense as usual.

There is hate on the left. Without question. There’s also hate on the right. There are totally extreme nut jobs on both sides, too. Neither side has a total monopoly on either. But I think it’s pretty lazy to not see past the noise and understand the origin of hatred on any side of conflict. Context is everything. And most can agree with that when it comes to certain situations. As a mother, I understand the hatred a mother would feel towards a drunk driver who ended their child’s life through one careless selfish decision to drive home from the pub intoxicated. Or for worse crimes we know exist. I’m using these examples simply to make the case that our value systems should be consistent. Not to imply the level of harm is the same in all cases. That would be an overreach.

Ann Widdecombe was a deeply controversial politician. She was unapologetic about her views on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, welfare and poverty. I remember her response when challenged about people who couldn’t afford a cheese sandwich: her answer amounted to, “Don’t have a cheese sandwich then.” I’ve watched her for years as a speaker on right wing conservative talking points; she dedicated her life to politics, but very often in ways that supported the structural degradation of groups of already marginalised people in society. So I loathed what she stood for and I make no secret of that.
And why should others who were actually targeted or harmed by the spread of her views suddenly be expected to pretend she was a saint because of what happened to her? Or be quiet? Widdecombe was anything a saint and anything but quiet throughout her political career. Death doesn’t erase public record.

What I will say though, is this: what happened to her was awful. Abhorrent. What happened was utterly disgusting, AND so were her views on a lot of things. Views that had influence. That doesn’t mean she deserved what happened to her. I feel for her, and her family. She would have been scared. She has my empathy for that. In spades. But I certainly don’t think others who were the focus of her intolerance should be expected to rewrite history or suppress honest criticism of the suffering she supported within society, out of respect for some weird convention that says we should only speak well of the dead. I don’t buy into that.

I’m sure Ann loved her family, had close friends, and watered all her house plants. I don’t see the world in terms of heroes and villains. We can be either at any time under different circumstances. But for those who’ve maybe read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, you may also find truth in the words of Covey who said “we are what we repeatedly do”. If you repeatedly lie, guess what? You’re a liar.

There’s truth in that, even though I mostly see people on a spectrum and not in the binary. I still see the small compounding decisions they repeatedly make, and more importantly how those decisions impact others. We can also accept conflicting ideas, where good people commit a bad act, for good reason. It’s complicated.
But overall, some people leave the world a tiny bit kinder, fairer and more compassionate as a result of those compounding decisions met with their sphere of influence. Others leave it more divided, more fearful or less equal. Most of us fall somewhere in between. And most have little influence outside our immediate circle.
Ann had more than the average bod, so I hold her and other public figures to a higher standard. She didn’t stack up, for me.

Ann Widdecombe accepted and even defended policy that saw totally unnecessary poverty and hunger (children included), in the 6th richest country in the world. She stood against abortion in cases of rape. And she consistently fought against gay rights. She repeatedly contributed to this. This is who she was. What she stood for. And what those who support her stand for.

So what the right read as hatred among the left today, in the wake of this awful event that brought her world views into sharp focus, I read as an intolerance not of her skin colour, or her sexual orientation, or her nationality, but of all she stood for and against; all she was intolerant of in people without choices.

Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance explains this best, I think. If you’ve not come across it, it’s essentially characterised by an intolerance of intolerance itself. The difference is this: to be intolerant of someone’s skin colour, ethnicity, or other things they cannot change, such as their sexual orientation, or even level of poverty, certainly if you’re still a child born into it, is not the same as having an intolerance of those who punch down at them from a place of privilege.

Ann Widdecombe was openly homophobic and believed science should one day cure it, as if being gay were a disease to be eradicated. That’s a profound intolerance of something people cannot change. The same cannot be said of a worldview built on prejudice, bigotry or theocratic ideology. Those are beliefs. They’re decisions. They can be questioned, challenged and changed. Even after death. And if she and others like her directed more of their intolerance towards harmful ideas, rather than towards people for who they are, and for that which they cannot change, we’d have less hatred on both sides. But the root of that hatred, is glaringly obvious when you actually take the time to analyse it. Spoiler alert: it’s not coming from the left.

So this headline can get in the bin.
Where it belongs.

I understand why you feel that way. The sexual abuse scandals and the failures of some Church leaders to protect victims are horrific, and Catholics should never minimise them. Those crimes deserve condemnation, justice, and accountability.

That said, I don't think it's fair to conclude that because members of the Church committed grave sins, the Church therefore has no right to teach on moral issues. If that were the case, no individual or institution that had failed morally could ever speak about ethics again.

Catholic teaching on sex doesn't derive from the moral perfection of priests or bishops. It rests on what Catholics believe is revealed by God through Scripture and Tradition. The fact that some clergy violated those teachings in the most appalling way is an argument against their hypocrisy, not necessarily against the teachings themselves.

You don't have to accept Catholic teaching, of course, but I don't think victims of abuse are served by suggesting that the Church should simply stop expressing its beliefs. A pluralistic society means religious people and non-religious people alike are free to express their moral convictions, provided they do so respectfully.

And if you think you can exploit trans hate to distract from her homophobia you be very mistaken as well as deeply ignorant.

So you are very keen to call out what you perceive to be homophobia in one individual but will totally ignore the blatant and well evidenced homophobia within your cause of choice.

As I mentioned to PP, this is the issue that will inevitably arise when your opinions are not backed by clearly thought through principles. Your position is now inconsistent.

I also think it's worth digging into what "conversion therapy" actually means. Because it's a bit of a buzzword .

One thing that I think is really notable is that the desire to ban it is usually more ideological, than medical. In general, most medical practitioners will say it's unlikely to be effective. But that's not why people don't want to allow it, really, they wouldn't feel differently if someone discovered a way to make it effective.

The reasons people want it outlawed are usually - they think it will be used abusively against people who don't want it, or relatedly will imply people should want to get it rather than being contented with their sexual orientation, and secondly, because they don't want to challenge the truism that a homosexual orientation is inherent and unchangable.

the first of those is by far the stronger argument, but not a slam dunk - it can be possible to regulate things that could be abusive to be only used when they are not. So that would come down to what would in many cases be a pragmatic discussion. The question of whether it would make people feel they ought to have the therapy is more complex and becomes to some extent a question of competing rights and harms.

But the desire to support a particular "scientific" view of homosexuality is far more fraught. Largely because there is no really robust, well evidenced, single scientific account. The truism is not the product of science, it was and is mainly a n assumption that was socially driven to support civil rights discussions. There was a major pivot on this, including in the gay community, in the late 70s, early 80s. But it doesn't come out of any kind of research.

The evidence points to a multi-factorial picture that human sexuality is very complex, that probably also varies for individuals. Which is to say their experience of their own sexuality can be very differernt from another person's experience, and could be affected or a reflection of completely different things.

This tends to suggest though that people might have varying reasons to want to address their sexuality with a professional, and even modify their behaviour. Simply disallowing it begins to edge in on the "right" of people to assess their own situation and respond to it as they feel is appropriate, and to get help if they feel there are problems in their lives.

Which I think is where AW was coming from on this.

I agreed that she appears to believe that therapy could be effective to help someone who is same-sex attracted to lead a heterosexual life. She believed people should be able to access that type of therapy if they want. She disagress with the decision made about this therapist.

You seem to think this means she harbours "gay conversion fantasies" and you doubt the sincerity of her (or my?) claims. The words you have used suggest that you think her carefully described views are merely a cover for malevolent intent/more extreme views.

Ann just had differing opinion to many young people. The left have written horrid things about Ann.
She was conservative but supportive of families and free speech.
Terrible that a woman who gave her life for public service is attacked.

I respectfully disagree with your post.

No one has adequately explained why it's not hateful or homophobic in a way that has genuinely changed my assessment of it.

Fair enough, if you can look at the actual words she said and the comments from many gay people that knew her and still stick with your opinion, that’s your prerogative. It seems that you are somewhat resistant to diversity of opinion and are happy to ignore context and are determined to attach a negative label nevertheless.

You didn’t answer this question.

Do you criticise Muslims as harshly for the anti homosexual elements in their faith?

As more than half of Muslims in the UK report that they are against homosexuality and think it should be re-criminalised, if you are worried about homophobia and political power, the increasing political influence of said Muslims would concern you, no?

I’m trying to determine how deep your principles on perceived and/or real homophobia are.

I don’t use Facebook for the reason that poster said. Even on local news pages when they’d post something about a brown child dying the post would be mostly laugh reacts. There was a young brown girl who drowned and the news was met with 100s of laugh reacts. That was the very moment I realised my skin is far too thin for social media. It genuinely upset me, seeing people take joy in a child’s death because of the colour of her skin. But I wasn’t following anything where you’d expect that, it wasn’t a Britain first page or anything, just local news group and the story was shared. That was my limit. Maybe I’m very sensitive but you have to protect your mental wellbeing.

I agree with you and have seen it too.

Yes your post where you said using the word hateful was an example of extremist language on both sides of you're going to claim misrepresentation it's good form to point out what it is you feel is being misrepresented.

The same waffle can be said about any misogynist who have many women in their lives or who love them, have a family with them etc. it doesn't mean any other woman can't find their words hateful and misogynistic.

I find all religions laughable and their homophobia unacceptable, I didn't bring Muslims into this because as far as I knew AW wasn't Muslim. I'm not sure why you'd assume I wouldn't find Muslim homophobia unacceptable. From a political perspective though in the UK Muslim communities have voted in ways that are surprisingly gay friendly. I don't want to restrict any communities voting power though, however they would vote. I only want to be able to call it as I see it. Are you concerned about it though, is it something you're worried about those with political power and homophobic views?

If that were the case, no individual or institution that had failed morally could ever speak about ethics again.

Well as much as I wouldn't support any any restrictions on them doing so, there's a point that maybe they should before they've cleaned their own house. There's still multiple pedos avoiding justice with the protection of the catholic church, it's not like they've even fixed that scandal before continuing to lecture others on their supposed mortality. I think them publicly cleaning out their house and standing firm in the morals they teach others, even if it meant not protecting men of the church, would help them maintain relevance in today's word. Until they do that, they're welcome to continue sharing their beliefs, but it doesn't seem that those who participate with the institution of the church hold them sincerely in practice.

Here is the context of what she wrote. There is nothing that backs your representation of her.

She was supporting a therapist who had been entrapped by a man who made false claims to her and asked for help. In the context of the time when we were at the early stages of being told that men could ‘change sex’ and homosexual relationships could become heterosexual which casts similar doubt and confusion on the inherency of homosexuality. Obviously we are now very clear that the whole ‘sex change’ line was a total lie and so is the idea that homosexuality can change but the thinking was quite different in those days.

She also highlights the hypocrisy and specific targeting of a Christian woman by the nascent ‘progressive left’ movement while ignoring the actual incitement to execute gay men by Muslims in the UK. A similar hypocrisy appears to persist today.

When I was training as a Samaritan in the Eighties the first principle was never to dismiss another’s priorities.
If a man rang in and said he was gay we should never say, “Oh, that doesn’t matter, it’s okay to be gay,” if he took the opposite view.
To help we had to start where the person on the other end of the phone was, whether we sympathised or not and that is also the starting point for most psychotherapists.
The really significant factor in all this is that Lesley Pilkington is a Christian and the homosexual lobby has turned all its fire in that direction.
Yet in recent days we have seen some Muslim men found guilty of a serious hate crime because they put round literature calling for homosexuals to be executed.

WE KNOW conversion therapy not only doesn't work but is psychologically harmful.

We might know that NOW but it took quite a long time for most of society to understand that. You are judging views formed a long time ago by the standards of now.

The implication being that they had included her on their list of bad faith ( Hate) actors....and were maybe worried that they could be subject to legal action in the way that Heather Herbert has now been?

Sorry I don't get your question,it's obviously Ann and similar I can find their insistence on applying their personal beliefs to others sad and hateful and still accept they have the liberty to belief as they wish and practice it. I don't get where I've implied I'm not talking about AW or how this is me not accepting they have a right to practice their beliefs.

I was literally initially on this thread responding to a PP who very firmly explained why gay people cannot and should not marry in the church and also that it is not God's preference for me to be gay. I really wish you guys would talk amongst eachother as much as you say you do. It would be an interesting debate to read between you and posters who don't think it's a negotiable issue. If someone's going to tell me black and white marriage is solely between a man and a woman I can assess that as homophobic.as I wish. By all means hash out your different Christian beliefs with @WiddleWaWa .if you want. I and others really don't care for the nuance of your special book and beliefs, we just wish you'd keep it to yourselves.

My posts are all there. It is clear that is not what I have said. Please stop misrepresenting me.

I think Catholics should be the first to agree that the abuse scandal was horrific, that bishops who covered it up betrayed both victims and the Gospel, and that anyone who has committed crimes or protected abusers should face justice. There is no faithful Catholic defence of those actions.
Where I would disagree is the idea that the Church must become morally flawless before it can speak about morality. If that were the standard, no individual, government, charity or institution could ever speak about ethics, because all have failed in serious ways.
The Catholic Church doesn't claim that her members, clergy included, are incapable of grave sin. Quite the opposite: Christianity teaches that human beings are sinners in need of repentance. The Church's moral teachings stand or fall on whether they are true, not on whether every Catholic lives up to them.
That said, credibility absolutely matters. The Church damages her witness whenever she fails to practise what she preaches, and Catholics should support transparency, accountability and justice for victims. Calling the Church to live more faithfully by her own teachings is entirely consistent with Catholicism. But abandoning true moral teaching because some within the Church have betrayed it would only compound one tragedy with another.

As soon as the 'bigot' card is pulled out the game is up.

I'm imagining you view yourself in a very favourable light, as someone who could never themselves be accused of bigotry. Indicative of someone who holds firm to the idea that their particular or adopted set of political values or beliefs is unquestionably righteous.

Yes there’s a lot of DARVO, projection and fiction being employed here.

I guess it just demonstrates the weakness of the ‘case’ being made against her and the strong desire of some to create one, by fair means or foul.

Thank you. That's much more helpful than my rather reactive posts yesterday, in which I may have been unfair to Generic, to whom my apologies for being insensitive.

The casual normalisation of extremist language on both sides is exactly what is tearing down tolerance in society.I'm sorry you can't see that

In that case, I'm afraid you will face this "hate" you believe you are seeing all your life. Because what you are seeing isn't in fact in their mind, it is in yours. In how you believe they are and what you blieve they feel.The only way to change people's minds...

It is very convenient for the accuser to be able to dismiss people with whom they disagree as being motivated by an irrational emotional state that exists behind their words rather than considering what they actually say and why.

I think it's interesting you continually assigned my POV to be falsely assisting an emotional state to homophobes while continually calling me upset, emotional, fearful etc and now are flouncing that I said you were misunderstanding that I don't care to engage with these people to change their mind and don't feel it's my responsibility to educate them. Just another person advocating for discussions they won't have it seems, except to tell people to not speak too harshly about those who want to impose their religion on other people

My apologies I offended you so much for asking if you're speaking from a Christian man's perspective.

I don't think by asking them to stop protecting and harbouring pedos is asking them to be morally flawless. Simply engaging with all the historical investigations and providing any evidence they hold that may give victims justice is not asking them to be "morally flawless".

@Shortshriftandlethal as you're back, were you going to explain how gay relationships affect everyone at a micro and macro level? It would be a major thing to understand.

Given your earlier and noticeably inaccurate claims about what she said, I’m still not sure you have listened to her actual words and their context before forming your opinion.

You are obviously still entitled to hold that opinion but its validity is somewhat undermined by your lack of facts.

From a political perspective though in the UK Muslim communities have voted in ways that are surprisingly gay friendly.

Without wishing to derail and with no evidence I find that very hard to believe. Unless you mean the deal done with the Greens based on even more lies and false premises? I have no idea what your general opinion was because you didn’t answer my question on it.

And yes, I am concerned by the idea of handing greater political power to a community where the majority express views that homosexuality should be illegal. Why aren’t you?