Off Topic Politics Thread

Well Rees Mogg thinks that we will be better off, for being able to bring back a bottle of duty free alcohol, but I don’t think he has factored in that people currently go across to the continent, to do what your friend does, and save a darn sight more money than they will on their duty free booze.
Maybe he thinks all booze is as cheap as that which is sold in the subsidised bars he and his colleagues use at the Commons.
It will all end in tears.

 

Archers

I think that the notions of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity reflect the faults of 18th century French society and I am not sure how the aspirations of the people who stormed the Bastille are so relevant in 2020. There is nothing fraternal in Macron's comments about Islam which relate to a serious chunk of the French population. The situation in France with it's Muslim population is a worse version of what BLM has been protesting about in the UK this summer. With regard to liberty, where is the freedom is you must sacrifice your religious convictions for the mores of a State which is not exactly partisan. In a "free" society, people should be able to choose to express themselves as they see fit and should not expect to see themselves as somehow having values which are contrary to those dictated by the State.

As I said previously, it is a fascinating topic because of the significance of the French Republic as being an originator of true liberty. I am not sure that "culture clash" is doesn't downscale the extent of the problem. That a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo can promote such unsavory images and be defended is maybe an indication as to how misguided and out of stem French society is in comparison with the broader Western World. If French parents elect to take their kids out of school because what they are being taught is so fundamentally contrary to their beliefs and can be held up to ridicule in class, something has gone wrong somewhere.

Macron's comments are totally misguided and I think, for once, Erdogan's comments are something I would agree with. The rules my which a society lives need to be flexible to accommodate how society changes. They cannot be put in aspic. i believe that the tenets need to change to reflect that France has a population who feel uncomfortable with a secular society. Even the likes of Melenchamp has acknowledged this. As I said, one sixth of the French population is Muslim and it is ridiculous that the State believes that freedom of speech is so important as to allow great offence to these people to be something worthy of being defended. It is up for French society to arrive as a solution and bring itself up to the same standards as the rest of "liberal" Europe.

 

Hmmm .... one of the many reasons I don’t accept any religion and am convinced that it is the cause of virtually all conflicts for millennia. Sadly, despite Islam being a religion which preaches peace and tolerance (and, yes, I’ve read both Bible and Koran), once any religion gets hijacked by extremists (and both books can have all sorts of things read into them by zealots) it is on the road to a huge problem. Islam is, as you say, the fastest growing religion in the world (sadly), but one which demeans women (there is NOTHING in the Koran - other than the general remark “the men” - which stops women praying in mosques alongside men, but that is how it has been regarded by the mullahs) and doesn’t allow ANY critique of their god or saints. It is as old fashioned as Orthodox Judaism (and shares many roots) and, in my opinion, should be treated as such. Christians have regarded criticism of their religion forever, but the acts perpetrated by these scum (and it’s unfair on animals to call them “animals”) should not be tolerated. Sadly, due to their colonialism, the French are now home to many Africans of Muslim faith. I imagine that most of those are tolerant, but the rabble will whip up issues in any way they can and will insist on a secular state, which no country should accept.
I firmly believe in free speech, but if extremists from any religion or political party put fear into ordinary people for daring to find some humour in the absurdity which is religion or politics, then we’re on a very slippery slope. So, in conclusion, I don’t agree with you. There needs to be calm and reasonableness on both sides and Erdogan (who is a most dangerous man, according to my Turkish friends) should keep his nose out of another country’s affairs and sort his own mess out instead of trying to score points. I wish all religion was seen in the ridiculous light that comedians such as the wonderful Dave Allen saw and we could all live in peace.
As John Lennon said “imagine .......”

 

**** me, youlost your bone or something.

Can it be that not everything on here is written with the seriousness that must behold your life. Sometimes, things just maybe said in jest. But that's more you're problem than mine.

 

Well said Stephen Fry. Substitute CV for bone cancer in children.

 

I could listen to Stephen Fry all day long. His knowledge and delivery is captivating.

 

This series on the laws of cricket excellent. He's a real all rounder.

 

Yeah, I'm not really much of an admirer of Macron, and I don't entirely trust his motives.

But history is important; France acquired her Republic not long after the USA acquired hers. 2000 years ago, Rome lost hers to tyranny. That of the USA, which was partly based on some principles of Roman law, is under threat from an incumbent tyrant. How it survives (especially if Trump losee the election but refuses to leave office) will depend to some extent on the robustness of the constitution written 250 years ago by it's founding fathers.

My point being that the notions which drove the French revolution in 1789, are still important; as are those that drove the American revolution in 1776, the English revolution in 1642, the foundation of Roman republic nearly 2 and a half millenia ago, and the Athenian republic before that.

"Better the law should rule, than a tyrant", is a quote attributed to Socrates. It's as true now as it was then, and I would suggest, taken to it's natural conclusion, it means that the Rule of Law should take precedence over the rules of faith, religion, or individual belief systems.

 

Archers

This is a really interesting question. I think the whole idea of a written constitution needs to be considered on the basis that it must change to suite circumstances. The best example I can think of is the right to bear arms in America which reflects the gung-ho manner in which the American Republic emerged not only from the British administration but also due to the lack of people available to enforce law and the fact that s much of the land still remained in the possession of the American nations. You can understand the logic but in a sophisticated and mature society, is it really necessary to carry fire arms? There is no point in having an unamended written constitution if it no longer reflects society. The point of a Rule of Law is that it should be amended when it becomes "bad law." Law is there to serve the people and not the other way around. If society is looking at alternatives to a secular model, continuing with a 230 year model is not the answer.

I think that at a secular society is preferable and it is something that the history of Western civilisation since the Middle Ages has been trying to grabble with. The other issue has been the diminution of the absolute power invested in monarchs and the move to democratic constitutions. However, as someone who is interested in Medieval history, you can sense that Islam is going through a similar period in the 21st century albeit as a consequence of battling against an increasingly secular, Western world.

The other factor is the borders between countries are now much more fluid, not just physically but also with regard to ideas and values which can permeate the world over through technology. I think that we will reach a point at which countries like France and Germany will need to review their constitutions because they will be increasingly at odds with an ever largening "non-Christian" population. The situation with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is a prime example for me of where there is a lack of recognition that the world has changed and causing offence like that cannot be considered acceptable in 21st century. I love France yet thing sometimes the people have attitudes which are still back in the 1970s. Go to France during a World Cup and see how many French people are wearing the shirts of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as other European countries like Portugal. There are effectively many different "versions" of France and these will have different values.

The reckoning point will come when there is a genuine grievance in France with riots in the major cities where disaffected Muslim teenagers will be seeking to retain their religious identity whilst being denied justice and jobs. I can see a situation where someone like Erdogan plays that situation to his advantage and being denied justice through the French system, these people will look outside France for support. The recent protests in favour of "freedom of speech" are just exacerbating this problem. You can see parallels with what happened in Gaul in Late Antiquity where the old Roman Empire could no longer control it's borders and lost control of land and it's culture to something different which reflected the world of that time far more adequately. The "old Roman Empire might have been vastly superior and efficient in contrast to France in the period before the Merovingian era but it was not robust or flexible enough to resist serious change. The advent of the internet means ideas disseminate fair quicker and France seems typical to me of those countries in the West that refuse to recognise we are now in a phase where Islam has effectively usurped Christianity as a religion and there are economic superpowers like China who can effectively do as they please. It is a rather depressing view for Westerner to take but I feel we are genuinely at some kind of crossroads where the reactions of the likes of Macron are kneejerk and not at all pragmatic. These views reflect an inability to look at things from a long term perspective.

 

France acquired her first Republic in 1792, but the notions that drove it didn't exactly last long. I mean, it took (at minimum, depending on what you count*) seven more successful revolutions/deposed systems of government and plenty of unsuccessful ones, and nearly a century, to bring about a Republic that lasted long enough to be much more than an interregnum.


*I'm counting the 1789-1792 revolution, the 18 Brumaire coup to install Napoleon, the Bourbon restoration, the July Revolution of 1830 to install Louis-Phillippe, the 1848 Revolution, the 1851 Bonapartist coup d'etat, and the 1870 dissolution of the empire and establishment of the Third Republic. Almost all of those had popular support. Business was good if you were a manufacturer of barricade-quality furniture.

 

Not surprised to see this happen.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54683738

 

I’m glad it was all a joke. I thought you really believed some of the stuff you said

 

But he voted no?

 

This is what they do, though.
They get the exposure for saying the right thing, before doing the opposite in the hope that it won’t be noticed.
The media are every bit as responsible, because they don’t emphasise the duplicity.

 

Proof that a lot of MPs vote as requested by the party and not how they feel their constituents want them to. Sadly people have to wait 4 years to show them they shouldn’t have, if they remember what they did.

 

I'm a bit surprised that you even bother to respond. So obviously a WUM.

 

Me too

I just try to get out of the echo chamber occasionally, what can I say?

 

Well, im glad youve got it all sussed out.

Not everything I say, but some things I say are tongue in cheek. Now, it isnt nice calling someone a WUM, is it. I think most on here would not think I am that, I may take the piss, I may have different view, but not that - think you may need to re-think an easy to label strategy on this.

Clearly I touch a nerve with you - is that only when I post on the Politics thread and that I dont buy into everything that is spewed on here, or on other threads also?

And I really hope we can get past all that to get to know one another - you may find out we'd be BFFs