in being disgusted with Oxford SU inviting Marine Lepen???

soutra your post: 8th february 15.42.01

I am very as I was not posting on this thread (until now)

Anyway, I will say that my DC are strong-minded adults with views of their own which may not coincide with mine.
Were I to think that they were being brainwashed by some extremist cult I hope I would take whatever steps I could to prevent that happening.
Otherwise I am happy for them to think for themselves, decide for themselves as I hope I am not so arrogant as to think that what I believe is necessarily right. (Not all the time, anyway.)
They are my adult DC, not my clones.

In the light of new evidence on any subject, are we not allowed to look at it with new eyes and re-think? To stay in the same mindset for all of one's life means one is very rigid and unbending.

Marie le Pen is not a criminal - and this is an invitation to a debating society not a party political broadcast.

Why, jura? Free speech is the same whether it's prestigious or not. Besides, how many people will actually hear what she has to say? Those who listen to her speech and then those who can be bothered to read a transcript or listen to a recording.

Her freedom of speech has to be the same as yours or as that of somebody with whose views you agree, otherwise it isn't free speech. You can't have some people being more equal than others or you're into Animal Farm territory.

I agree to a large extent- about free speech.

A big difference though, between allowing someone to speak, and actually giving them a prestigious platform to do so?

The reason the law came into this topic in the first place is because various posters believe that speech should not be censored apart from those instances proscribed by law, such as incitement to hatred. If a person is prevented from speaking out about their particular views, then the door is open for preventing anybody from doing so. That this women's politics are anathema to some, even many, does not mean that she should be prevented from speaking. After all, who is to decide who should and should not be allowed access to a forum and on what grounds?

I don't think laws relating to alcohol are relevant here.

I do think that there are different ways of doing things.
For instance, alchohol laws.
People say "this cant be done" or "that cant be done". When actually, yes it can! Other countries manage it, or other things differently, perfectly well.
It is sometimes the will of the people that stops things changing, not that the problem is an insurmountable one.

Thanks granjura!

Yeah who cares about typos- quite right Soontobe.

For me, having the ability to change my attitude and beliefs, as I learn more about the world- is what makes life so interesting. Perhaps, if I guess right- you were born in a close-knit community and part of a close-knit Church- where your views and beliefs have not really been challenged on a regular basis. Our family was so varied, from the very start, in so many ways- that having to think for myself and make choices was the reality from very young- and as I travelled, lived abroad and had to adapt to totally different communities and 'systems' - and then marrying someone from an even much much more complex family, cultures, religions, 'class', etc- having one fixed set to beliefs would just not have been possible at all.

Must say I am so grateful for that. Having one set of fixed belief would indeed be comforting and much 'easier' - but certainly not challenging or interesting.

I do admire you though, Soontobe- because you are not swayed and have such strong beliefs. Your sincerity and honesty are a breath of fresh air, in many ways.

I saw the typo by the way.
I just couldnt be bothered to correct it!

I had made such a mess of the word, that I would have had to look it up, and I couldnt be bothered!

You have a point their grannyactivist.

I am actully very surprised that people on here are fine about their fluid views.
I would feel very uncomfortable myself.
It means that I cannot evern believe myself.
It would mean that I moght well disagree with myself next week. yuk!

<Fells like opeining a new thread for them!>!!

I couldnt care lessssss about my typo!

<feels like being naughty and doing them all over the plaice!>

Cant remember what I was going to wrote now!

I find myself, to some extent, agreeing with both sides of the argument - which is very unsettling.

However, I don't agree that just because a majority, even a large majority, of the population supports a certain person or policy it necessarily means that person or policy is an admirable one. Hitler's ideas were, at least initially, very popular in Germany.

No confusion- she is all the more dangerous for being 'butter wouldn't melt' unlike her father- and for hiding her awful ideologies behind her 'average french woman' face and words. She is only different on the surface- and it is because she has such a high % of the vote that I am concerned about giving her more 'credibility' by associating her with Oxford Uni.

But yes, freedom of speech and all that- I can see.

I think the OP is confusing Marine Le Pen with her father. She is a far more attractive (both politically and aesthetically ) than her intransigent father.She has support in France, and only a couple of weeks ago she had 25% of Parisien gays supporting her policies... a bit of a turn up for the books, and probably sending her Papa into a flat spin. The Oxford Union has every right to invite controversial speakers. Where would free debate be if debating societies invited speakers of the same ilk?

I brought up my daughters to question everything, and of course it became a whip with which to beat myself when they were teenagers, but I don't regret it now . They were exposed to all shades of political ideology, including several summer holidays in the company of a French 'signed-up' member of Jean-Marie Le Pen's FN in the Thatcher days (who our French friend thought walked on water). We all loved him to bits, and found his politics highly amusing! Needless to say his politics had no effect on my girls.But neither did any other shade of politics from blue through to green!

Freedom of speech is one of the last rights we have. It would be a complete travesty if this was yet another right to be abandoned for Political Correctness

'Je suis Charlie Hebdo'

I spend a while constructing the posts before I send them, rosequartz

See what I mean about the button?

Yep!

When they were young my children were deliberately exposed to people whose thoughts, ideas and lifestyles are very different from those of mine and my husband's. We wanted them to be able to experience difference so that they would learn to value people even when they held different or opposing views or had different value systems or lifestyles. As a consequence I think my adult children are very well able to form their own opinions and just as importantly are able to get along with people who are very different from themselves.

soutra is a (sic) really needed for what is clearly merely a typo?

Good post Elegran- but it is amazing how different laws can be, even in countries like the ones I mentioned- which are culturally so so close. So close even.... that half the people I meet who have a totally different set of laws (and everything else!) live less than 1/2 mile away. Both side are very rural, and people can be very insular and will not even consider thinking about different ways of doing things.

If the law becomes the main guidanceas (sic) as to what a person believes it means their beliefs are fluid
I don't think the law ever dictates or has the right to dictate what we believe, not in a free democracy. Go back 80 years to pre-war Germany, or 50 years to the DDR or look at Burma or North Korea today for examples of that. So no, I cannot see where you are coming from with that assertion.

The law is made by people, and can be changed by people, according to what they believe. It is not a fast process, but that what democracy is all about.

What the law enacts is governed by what is believed by the population as a whole to be a good standard of behaviour. Their elected representatives in government make or change laws according to public opinion (influenced in part by the policies of the part they represent, which have different views on what is good for the country as a whole)

How people act is governed by the law. What they believe is a good standard of behaviour is governed by how they were brought up, what examples they have to copy, and what their own reading, experiences and analysis have shown them. How fluid that is depends on their personalities and thought processes.

As you probably know, granjura, the FN in France has a slightly different image from the NF in the UK. The have much more solid support here in fact in ?2005 Marine's father was in the last round of voting for president against Chirac. In rural areas here they always get at least 10% of the vote.
I've no idea though what her real principles are. She tries to appear more moderate than her father.
I can understand the interest from the Oxford debating group.

For me Soontobe, having 'fluid' beliefs- or rather the capacity to adapt beliefs and opinions according to experience and new knowledge, is just so important. This is how we all evolve, and hopefully become 'better ' people in many ways. If, like us, you lived your daily lives spread across 3 sets of laws, and systems of every kind (as above) and have family spread right across the globe, some living a very different culture altogether- you just have to adapt, and be fluid as you say. Fundamental beliefs remain the same, of course.

x post. I wrote my post before having seen granjura's.
My machine is slow, so sorry for x posts that I do.

If the law is or becomes the main guidanceas to what a person believes, it means that their beliefs are fluid.