Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Should this woman be allowed to be in government?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All Western legal systems are based on the laws of the Old Testament. (For example,the Supreme Court in the US has proclaimed that there is NO higher authority than the word of God).

    The American legal system was specifically not based on the laws of the Old Testament. Any reference to God or gods was added later, but the original intent was to remove all religious authority from the legal system. The French legal system was formed on a similar basis, and went through a huge struggle to specifically remove religion from the legal system.

    But how can you claim that any current western legal system is based on the Old Testament? By what stretch of the imagination? Of the Ten Commandments, only two are against the law of pretty much every country in Europe and North America. And both of these have existed in pretty much every culture pre and post biblical times. And that's before we get to the more obscure laws and punishments of books like Leviticus.
    She seems to be (accurately) basing her views on the statutes present in Leviticus.
    True. But she's making factually inaccurate statements based on what science currently tells us. I'm afraid that makes her an idiot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, I seem to be in the minority on this issue, but I still believe a line can be drawn to allow the immense majority of parties that do not seek out to persecute minorities or promote racist or hateful agendas, and ban those that do. It doesn't need to be a slippery slope. There is a massive, clear different between what the BNP stands for and every other party in existence in the UK

    The slippery slope is only part of the argument (though a very real one). The real argument is that in a democracy all parties and viewpoints should be able to put themselves forward - and that includes those who we find repulsive. Now I can see in extreme circumstances (eg WW2 and the the banning of the BUF), but in day to day elections sometimes we have to hold our noses. I am after all Northern Irish, and given the fuckwits we have in the DUP and Sinn-Fein/IRA (plus the PUP who are just as bad, but can't get any votes) I've had to hold my nose quiet a lot when I was younger.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Does that include racist talk about blacks or Jews (to name but two)?

    If so we'll have to agree to disagree about it. There has been far too much persecution and murdering of such minorities. When it comes to racists and homophobes total freedom of speech should come second to fighting such repellent scum in every way possible IMO.

    Yes it does. Comments aren't the same as murder and persecution. It's not a case of what's first and what's second. I'm always disgusted by what people like this woman and the BNP say about people who've done nothing wrong, but that's because I've heard something to be horrfied by. If the BNP weren't allowed to express their opinions people wouldn't be as opposed to them, they could even end up getting elected as a protest vote and where would the country be then?
    It's not ok to attack someone because of their race or sexuality, even if you believe it's the right thing. There are no exceptions to this. Talking will only hurt someone if they choose to be offended. If we decide to ban conversations we don't like the content of where do we stop?
    Free speech means free speech, not free speech that doesn't offend people, risk leading to conversations that could offend people, or encourage people to say something that could offend people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look, the fact of the matter is that homosexuality will never be accepted as normal by the entire population. There will always be someone in this world who views homosexuality as some kind of disease. If that person happens to be an MP, I don't especially care. After all, this isn't the first time that a Member of Parliament has made comments which are, frankly, retarded in the extreme. I suggest that we laugh at this ridiculous Robinson creature, knowing that she has no idea just how stupid such comments make her look. They're not worthy of a more serious response.

    One other question - how many people in Britain would agree with her view of homosexuality? Serious question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    One other question - how many people in Britain would agree with her view of homosexuality? Serious question.

    How about the 20,000 people that voted her into Parliament in 2005 for a start?

    The DUP and fundamental Christianity are inextricably linked in this country, there's literally hundreds of thousands of them!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't it a bit hypocritical that you lot are calling for her to resign / be deported / be burnt at the stake simply because she has an opinion on stuff that's not your own?

    Surely the whole point of government is to have meaningful, constructive debate on things from a wide range of viewpoints. Her view might be extreme but she is at least entitled to it. The Bible makes its opinion on homosexuality pretty clear and if she, like a lot of people, wish to take their system of values from it, then who are you to say that she can't? There are several passages in the Bible that refer to sodomy as an abominable act so surely her faith is merely guiding her opinion.

    Now whether her beliefs are antequated or not is up for debate, but her right to have those opinions is not. Not all our governments, departments, councils and committees can be full of Guardian-waving, sandal-wearing hippies :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it does. Comments aren't the same as murder and persecution. It's not a case of what's first and what's second. I'm always disgusted by what people like this woman and the BNP say about people who've done nothing wrong, but that's because I've heard something to be horrfied by. If the BNP weren't allowed to express their opinions people wouldn't be as opposed to them, they could even end up getting elected as a protest vote and where would the country be then?
    It's not ok to attack someone because of their race or sexuality, even if you believe it's the right thing. There are no exceptions to this. Talking will only hurt someone if they choose to be offended. If we decide to ban conversations we don't like the content of where do we stop?
    Free speech means free speech, not free speech that doesn't offend people, risk leading to conversations that could offend people, or encourage people to say something that could offend people.
    Fair enough. We'll disagree on that I guess.

    Out of curiosity, would you at least draw a line at libellous personal attacks? For instance, saying that so-and-so is a rapist and a thief when he isn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think anyone who says something like that and is proved wrong has done enough damage to themselves because no one will ever believe them again. Why should the rest of society suffer as well?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think anyone who says something like that and is proved wrong has done enough damage to themselves because no one will ever believe them again. Why should the rest of society suffer as well?

    That only works if the two parties are of equal standing. If a newspaper prints an article that an MP is taking bribes, even if later it turns out not to be true it will stick, and it will taint their name.

    Although attacks on groups can feel more offensive because you are reducing the person down to just one trait of their personality they dont have the ability to ruin a single persons reputation in the same way.
Sign In or Register to comment.