Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Gay voters support Marine le Pen's Front Nationale watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Fascinating. It seems likely that, increasingly, gay people are becoming conscious of the threat to their very existence posed by Islamic radicals.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...nces-gay-vote/

    A week before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, France’s leading gay magazine,Têtu, announced the winner of its annual beauty contest. His name was Matthieu Chartraire, and he was 22, doe-eyed and six-packed, with perfectly groomed hair, stubble and eyebrows. A pin-up in every way — until he started talking.
    To the anger of many of the magazine’s readers, the Adonis of 2015 turns out to be an outspoken supporter of the Front National. Têtu’s editor-in-chief, Yannick Barbe, refused to play censor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the French, I don't even eat croissants anymore.

    I'm voting UKIP.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Fascinating. It seems likely that, increasingly, gay people are becoming conscious of the threat to their very existence posed by Islamic radicals.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...nces-gay-vote/
    define Islamic radicals since you love using the word ' islamic ' so loosely. Gay people are oppressed by every race not just as you put it ' islamic radicals '..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moh.1Ace)
    define Islamic radicals since you love using the word ' islamic ' so loosely. Gay people are oppressed by every race not just as you put it ' islamic radicals '..
    Gays can get married/civil partnered and adopt kids in moist of the Western/civilised world, so there's little "oppression" left. Sure there are homophobes are British, but that's not oppression, per say. Whereas gays really are oppressed in the muslim world.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Fascinating. It seems likely that, increasingly, gay people are becoming conscious of the threat to their very existence posed by Islamic radicals.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...nces-gay-vote/
    More and More group are waking up to the threat that is islam and we'll see in the near future some odd groups coming together to fight the common enemy and in turn make these groups more tolerant of each other (there have been examples of this for example the miners and their gay supporters back in the days of the miners strikes)

    This can only be a good thing and should be encouraged where ever possible
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's no wonder giving the Islamic threat to their lives, a little too late though if you ask me.
    Short of just deporting a large percentage of their Muslim demographic, Frances Muslims will have enough votes soon to really start instigating change........perhaps demanding a separate state whenever their demands aren't met, as we so often see them do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moh.1Ace)
    define Islamic radicals since you love using the word ' islamic ' so loosely. Gay people are oppressed by every race not just as you put it ' islamic radicals '..
    I would hardly say Gays are oppressed in western europe
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnCrichton89)
    It's no wonder giving the Islamic threat to their lives, a little too late though if you ask me.
    Short of just deporting a large percentage of their Muslim demographic, Frances Muslims will have enough votes soon to really start instigating change........perhaps demanding a separate state whenever their demands aren't met, as we so often see them do.
    Islam was in spain for 700 years.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd normally be appalled that such a backward party was being elected but with Muslims now making up 9% of the population with a positive birth rate, the situation is going too far. At the very least we need to stop importing these people.

    Granted I've not actually seen any Muslim specific policy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    I hate the French, I don't even eat croissants anymore.

    I'm voting UKIP.
    islam has basically brought the national front in france back from the dead. in the same way islamists in the uk gave rise to THE EDL, and the immigrant fear-mongering of ukip
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ICF)
    islam has basically brought the national front in france back from the dead. in the same way islamists in the uk gave rise to THE EDL, and the immigrant fear-mongering of ukip
    Islam's not a threat to the French way of life, but only to French interests within the Islamic world. Recitations of the Quran are not about to invade the airwaves of Europe and the USA as the most derogatory products of Western pop culture are conquering the East, while Western secularism is trying desperately to force through violence not only its technology, but also its decaying and half dead worldview, by that very same technology, upon the non-Western world, especially the Islamic.

    Don't even think of replying with some diarrhoea **** like this:

    (Original post by Observatory)
    True, but look at what we do in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, making decisions on the assumption that every human being wants to live under a peaceful secular social democratic state. Their false beliefs about the West are probably just as intuitive to them as our false beliefs about them are to us.
    Are you really this thick? Muslim do not like freedom any less than anybody else on the planet. It is in the nature of human beings to like freedom. It isn’t that Muslims are against democracy or freedom. The problem is that these terms are defined solely upon the basis of Westerners, and the Western experience is culturally bound and taken several historical transformations to become what it is.

    Since the colonial period, the experience of Muslims has been that in most cases the West has not supported democratic movements in the Islamic world, but has supported any regime and force that would protect its interests, not caring whether the regime was democratic or not. That has been the experience of the people. So, they are, of course, going to be very skeptical and hateful.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    Are you really this thick? Muslim do not like freedom any less than anybody else on the planet. It is in the nature of human beings to like freedom. It isn’t that Muslims are against democracy or freedom. The problem is that these terms are defined solely upon the basis of Westerners, and the Western experience is culturally bound and taken several historical transformations to become what it is.

    Since the colonial period, the experience of Muslims has been that in most cases the West has not supported democratic movements in the Islamic world, but has supported any regime and force that would protect its interests, not caring whether the regime was democratic or not. That has been the experience of the people. So, they are, of course, going to be very skeptical and hateful.
    Your assertion that Iraqis and Afghans all really want secular social democracies, but decided instead to launch years of guerilla warfare inside their own countries with the aim of establishing various theocratic factions in a dictatorial position, because of some sense of wounded pride, is totally implausible to me. Would you act in that way? Would you expect German social democrats in 1945 to launch pro-Nazi insurgent attacks, as some sort of warped revenge for bombing or the treaty of Versailles? The simplest and most plausible explanation for why the civil population of much of the Islamic world attacks democracy is that the civil population doesn't support democracy.

    And we can test this theory, because there is in fact a part of the Middle East that really does want democracy, apart from Israel which already has it. In Kurdish Iraq, there wasn't a single death in the Western occupying forces, with the local population supporting the goals of the invasion and peacefully transitioning to democratic home rule. No doubt what Bush and Blair expected to happen everywhere. They expected this because they (wrongly) expected that secular social democracy was positively desired by most people everywhere.

    What he didn't take into account is that Islam is, at least in principle, incompatible with a democratic rule. It proposes a single, unalterable, totalising religious law. No democratic country can be regarded as legitimate within this ideological framework. The only two stable outcomes are the ones we see: a good faith attempt to actually enforce the theocracy Islam requires (Islamic State, HAMAS Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran), or a strong man state powerful enough to suppress large parts of the civil population, while cloaking itself in as much religious rhetoric as it can (Egypt, Jordan, Saddam's Iraq, UAE).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What is actually the FN's policy on gays? It says they are not against gay marriage, but from the rest of their support base I doubt they would be pushing for any other gay-friendly policies
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    X
    Well said. It's asinine to claim that it was actually hatred of America that caused Islamic extremist militants to bomb the Golden Dome of Samarra, or slaughter the Yezidi and set up slave markets to auction off their women and children, or execute Alawites truckdrivers by the side of the highway merely for being the wrong sect.

    The fact the US has brought elections and at least some attempt at genuine democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and withdrew from those countries, speaks volumes about its good motives (if it were simply about grabbing the oil, why would the Americans allow the Chinese to get such a large stake?). And unfortunately what the US can conclude is that even when we do it for them and then get out of the way, they still manage to screw it up.

    I would suggest that given large numbers of Muslims support the death penalty for apostates (Pew polling suggests it is a majority even in allegedly tolerant countries like Turkey, around 65% in the Palestinian territories and Iraq, and around 85% in Pakistan and Afghanistan), extremism is not limited to some small minority and in fact culturally Middle Eastern Islam is not ready for democracy (I say Middle Eastern because, despite their faults, Indonesia and Malaysia are managing it)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moh.1Ace)
    define Islamic radicals since you love using the word ' islamic ' so loosely. Gay people are oppressed by every race not just as you put it ' islamic radicals '..
    What's race got to do with anything?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    What is actually the FN's policy on gays? It says they are not against gay marriage, but from the rest of their support base I doubt they would be pushing for any other gay-friendly policies
    From what I know, they are not pushing further gay friendly policies, but they're also not actively pushing to repeal gay marriage if they take power (Marine le Pen made a point of not attending the anti-gay marriage protests in Paris last year) and will certainly not be seeking to repeal anti-discrimination protections and the like.

    I would also think gay people probably value their lives more than whether they can get married. Keep in mind homosexuality has been legal in France since the French revolution. For many gay people, it would be far preferable to return to 1950s France in cultural terms than to see parts of the country turn into mini-caliphates
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Your assertion that Iraqis and Afghans all really want secular social democracies, but decided instead to launch years of guerilla warfare inside their own countries with the aim of establishing various theocratic factions in a dictatorial position, because of some sense of wounded pride, is totally implausible to me. Would you act in that way? Would you expect German social democrats in 1945 to launch pro-Nazi insurgent attacks, as some sort of warped revenge for bombing or the treaty of Versailles? The simplest and most plausible explanation for why the civil population of much of the Islamic world attacks democracy is that the civil population doesn't support democracy.
    The reason for the conflict is the reality of a civilisation wanting to follow its own principles and develop in line with its own inner realities and dynamic instead of norms forced from outside which many people have stated, now threaten the West itself. Modernism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

    Have you ever bothered to ask yourself why so many young Iraqis and Afghans, at the prime of their youth, give up life without much difficulty and so voluntarily? What is driving them to such extreme actions? Terrorism of any kind, when committed by Muslims, is a heinous crime and against the teachings of Islam but today, when it comes to the Islamic world the reasons behind such terrible acts are hopelessness, unbearable pressures (often supported directly or indirectly by the West), and utter desperation before forces that are destroying one's religion and civilisation.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    And we can test this theory, because there is in fact a part of the Middle East that really does want democracy, apart from Israel which already has it. In Kurdish Iraq, there wasn't a single death in the Western occupying forces, with the local population supporting the goals of the invasion and peacefully transitioning to democratic home rule. No doubt what Bush and Blair expected to happen everywhere. They expected this because they (wrongly) expected that secular social democracy was positively desired by most people everywhere.

    What he didn't take into account is that Islam is, at least in principle, incompatible with a democratic rule. It proposes a single, unalterable, totalising religious law. No democratic country can be regarded as legitimate within this ideological framework. The only two stable outcomes are the ones we see: a good faith attempt to actually enforce the theocracy Islam requires (Islamic State, HAMAS Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran), or a strong man state powerful enough to suppress large parts of the civil population, while cloaking itself in as much religious rhetoric as it can (Egypt, Jordan, Saddam's Iraq, UAE).
    It proposes nothing of the kind, you’re showing a very poor understanding of Islamic political theory, according to which it matters very little as to what type of government there is because the Rule of Law, i.e. a nomocracy only allows limited government and that’s why the historical response of Muslims who have been forced to live under tyrannical despotic government, has not been the desire to subject those despots to quite meagre constitutional restraints but to hold onto and insist upon the broad layer of Law, that protects the vast majority of people from most of the governments most of the time.


    Oh God, Bush and Blair were never seriously interested in the welfare of the Islamic world, unless it coincided with their own geopolitical and economic interests, as seen so clearly in their shockingly hypocritical manner in which calls for human rights were applied whenever it was to the interest of certain powers but never when it contrasted with the political and commercial interests of that power.

    Every religion has to be concerned with the whole of life, and even Christianity which speaks of giving unto Caesar what is Caesar and giving unto God what is God, when it developed a whole civilisation had to be concerned with the whole of life, and therefore the domain of politics. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself and simply translates to “the rule of the people”. Peoples voices must be heard and there is no inherent contradiction with Islam.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I guess for some people, genuine democracy equates to putting paedophiles in power.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    The reason for the conflict is the reality of a civilisation wanting to follow its own principles and develop in line with its own inner realities and dynamic instead of norms forced from outside which many people have stated, now threaten the West itself. Modernism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

    Have you ever bothered to ask yourself why so many young Iraqis and Afghans, at the prime of their youth, give up life without much difficulty and so voluntarily? What is driving them to such extreme actions? Terrorism of any kind, when committed by Muslims, is a heinous crime and against the teachings of Islam but today, when it comes to the Islamic world the reasons behind such terrible acts are hopelessness, unbearable pressures (often supported directly or indirectly by the West), and utter desperation before forces that are destroying one's religion and civilisation.
    They're being driven by religious fanaticism. It is so obvious that to ask the question is to answer it.

    It proposes nothing of the kind, you’re showing a very poor understanding of Islamic political theory, according to which it matters very little as to what type of government there is because the Rule of Law, i.e. a nomocracy only allows limited government and that’s why the historical response of Muslims who have been forced to live under tyrannical despotic government, has not been the desire to subject those despots to quite meagre constitutional restraints but to hold onto and insist upon the broad layer of Law, that protects the vast majority of people from most of the governments most of the time.


    Oh God, Bush and Blair were never seriously interested in the welfare of the Islamic world, unless it coincided with their own geopolitical and economic interests, as seen so clearly in their shockingly hypocritical manner in which calls for human rights were applied whenever it was to the interest of certain powers but never when it contrasted with the political and commercial interests of that power.

    Every religion has to be concerned with the whole of life, and even Christianity which speaks of giving unto Caesar what is Caesar and giving unto God what is God, when it developed a whole civilisation had to be concerned with the whole of life, and therefore the domain of politics. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself and simply translates to “the rule of the people”. Peoples voices must be heard and there is no inherent contradiction with Islam.
    While you dress it up in evasive rhetoric, I am not sure we are even disagreeing. You are saying that religious fanatics will insist on electing fanatical religious despotic governments because that is what they want to do. Exactly. If they didn't want to do that, but rather establish a secular western social democracy, they would have co-operated with the Americans and their country would not be such a shambles today. The problem is Islam, not the Americans.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They're being driven by religious fanaticism. It is so obvious that to ask the question is to answer it.


    While you dress it up in evasive rhetoric, I am not sure we are even disagreeing. You are saying that religious fanatics will insist on electing fanatical religious despotic governments because that is what they want to do. Exactly. If they didn't want to do that, but rather establish a secular western social democracy, they would have co-operated with the Americans and their country would not be such a shambles today. The problem is Islam, not the Americans.

    :bebored:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 8, 2015
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.