We are being told that it's good that this Christian fundamentalist politician is being honest. This shows how low we have fallen. Honesty shouldn't be applauded - it should be a basic expectation.
That's the nature of rights, we must all have 'em in equal measure. The only justification for imposing one person's over another' is in preventing a greater loss of rights.
Honestly also I think that support for gay rights is such a no-brainer that if someone doesn't support gay rights and says they will actively use their political power to vote against equality, I think it is perfectly valid not to trust their judgement to be oh so lovely, and progressive, and not-at-all authoritarian on other issues either
Yeah, it's not about Kate Forbes' religious beliefs, it's about her saying she would "vote her conscience" on policies effecting marriage equality. She's going to govern based on her religious beliefs. Dalia and Michael are both right, not having ever heard her speak and only very vaguely knowing who she since I'm American, without knowing any of the context, the clip was mostly not objectionable. However, hearing all of it shows how hypocritical the Tories always are yet again. Thanks for another great video! I like trying to keep up with what's going on in the UK and Novara is a great resource.
What a lot of nonsense, is it wrong as an individual to VOTE with your conscience? I would like to think that all politicians vote with their conscience when the time comes rather than these fools that only vote for what is seen as political correctness and promotion to appease the minority rather than the whole of the electorate, I wont mention the recent example in Scotland. Kate Forbes made it perfectly clear this was only her view. What is being said here is that unless we fully endorse gay marriage, lets say, Trans ideals, we have no opinion and are bad people. This nonsense needs to STOP.
@@Weeman-v8n Voting with conscience is generally seen as noble - depending on your principles of course. But a little different for anyone running for leader. 'These are our party principles - I mean, I will not be voting for them myself, of course, but...' etc.
We’ll, that’s how they usually get voted in. Tell them what you think they want to hear rather than what you mean. Weasel worded cheep talk that encourages political cynicism. Just what the powerful ordered.
It seems only one side can lie without impunity. If the other sides lie (or tells the truth, it seems) it becomes a BIG problem. If only we had an honest media.
Yeah the problem isn't her beliefs, she can believe what she wants. If it impacts her judgement within the position though it's a problem. Especially since the last census showed most of the UK isn't Christian anymore.
Isn't it democracy is supposed to work? She expressed her honest view, now it's up to SNP members to decide if she can represent them without compromising her conscience, or theirs. If they say she can't, she's at liberty to find, or form, another party to make her case directly to the electorate.
Not everyone wants to insert themselves in the private lives of other adults? I’m not interested in anyones else personal life, it’s none of my business , but it’s very concerning that Forbes feels it ok to vote against gay marriage,because of her personal religious convictions, that she’s very well aware that those she represents don’t hold the views.
@@Dalibansoldier Never heard any Christians complaining about oral sex, or anal sex between men and women, which are both forms of ‘sodomy’ also. Judge not lest ye be judged.
@@Dalibansoldier Christianity - like most religions - has a rag-bag of 'principles' which you can use to back up doing whatever you want to do (e.g. owning slaves) or criticise anyone you don't like. For that matter, isn't it also a sin to 'cast the first stone'?
You’re defining a person having personal views (e.g. marriage is a union between man + wife) as “bigotry” so stopping that = stopping people from having opinions. It seems like you are the bigot here with some fascistic tendencies.
@@christinalloyd9566 This is mostly based on your other comment but I can tell that, without question you are an absolutely toxic and narrow-minded individual. You’re in a for a shock if you think you come out on top according to the “paradox of intolerance.” It’s people like you who would actively discriminate against billions of: Muslims, Christians, Jews and etc simply because they believe in a religion. Most of them would be perfectly fine with you being an atheist which is being tolerant of other people’s beliefs whereas YOU would do the complete opposite. You’re a bigot in every sense of the word and don’t ever forget that. People like YOU will be the detriment of society. People like YOU with your extreme intolerance are the ones trying to stop natural debate from happening. Kate Forbes shared her opinion but wouldn’t force it upon anybody nor would she judge/condemn a person for disagreeing with her. Could you do the same? Probably not.
That is actually a really good segment on wether freedom of speech can be weaponized to essentially stifle political debate and common sense decision making
I’m really encouraged by the discussion on Novara I agree the question to Forbes was completely fair. It doesn’t harm my religious freedom to ask me about my theology. It’s actually a compliment. It doesn’t threaten my religious freedom to worry it might infringe on your right to a private life or family life. It’s up to me to persuade you it won’t. That’s life in a democracy. I think the public discussion of traditional Christian beliefs could be better - for example Forbes is not a Protestant Fundamentalist; she is a Reformed evangelical; the differences are important. But that’s as much to do with anti-intellectualism in the Church as it is to do with secularism. Traditional religious communities - who share some of Forbes views- tend to exist on the bottom rung of society. The Tory party is the last group who should be speaking for them, in my view. And it’s very much in Tory interests to have religious and sexual minorities fear one another. So, I think the legal and moral right to both privacy, a family life and the right to manifest your identity in public are ideals everyone can and should support.
No one should use their religion to decide how they vote or to make decisions in government. There should be a complete separation between church and state. The right to follow a religion in private is a human right and should be protected. However when someone uses their religion in a way that has an unwanted impact on those who do not share the same faith then that becomes a breach of the right to not follow a religion.
The problem with Badenoch,s reasoning is that this is not about a member of the general public, it,s about a woman who wants to be creating legislation that effects everyone,s lives.
The Tory Party should not be dictating how the SNP should run their party, given their own bigotry. Religious beliefs have no place in politics period. MSP’s like Forbes cannot stand as it will have a detrimental impact on the trajectory of a progressive society. That’s why the SNP must choose Mhari Black as the next First Minister.
As a Scottish voter and a gay man, feel very disenchanted right now. Over the years I've steadily grown to dislike the SNP more and more (I say that as an SNP voter.) I don't like any of the leadership contenders and to be honest, I don't think I'll vote for the party in the future now that Sturgeon is stepping down.
Absolutely not shocking that Badenoch wouldn't dare to condemn Forbes' homophobia, instead minimising it to just her "religious beliefs", considering her own track record. Like, this is the same person who had two single occupancy loos marked as "men's" and "women's" at a venue she was speaking at because they were penned as "gender neutral" - If even the mere suggestion that something may be even a slight nicety for queer people bothers you to the point that you have something that pathetic done to make yourself more comfortable (or make yourself more palatable to a certain voting demographic...) then I think it's safe to assume that you are cut from the same cloth as Forbes et al.
No one condemns her for her religion. They condemn her views. If her religion influences her to have abhorrent views, then no one is obliged to vote for her.
It's not the issue of Forbes having the opinion but people judging how she would govern or implement policy based on her beliefs. If voters believe she won't be influenced they will support her, but if they don't believe her beliefs won't dictate how she governs then they won't vote for her. Personally I don't yet think she has effectively shown her beliefs are not a factor in being first minister. But that seems to be partly the media as they ask how she would vote on an issue and not what she would do if a policy was put forward.
Given that she stated that she would have voted against equal marriage if she'd been an MSP when it was being passed, i personally take that to mean that if a piece of legislation that similarly goes against her religious beliefs was put forward in the future she would also not support it. And as first minister that would mean that legislation would likely never even see the light of day, let alone just not be passed into law. And a full on halt in all socially progressive legislation isn't something I would want to vote for. Thats accepting her promises that she wouldn't try to weaken or role back such rights that have already been passed into law. And if you take any politicians promises as binding then i'm sorry for your future disappointment
I don't think people should be condemned for expressing their beliefs. I'd rather know what they really believe rather than them say what they think people want them to say. Now that I know her beliefs, I know I wouldn't vote for her.
Forbes doesn't have to marry a woman if she doesn't want to, that is her freedom of conscience. If her freedom of speech allows her to say it's wrong, it has to be another person's to say it isn't & she's wrong. It's also their freedom of conscience not to vote for her, especially if she'd use their mandate to impose her conscience over theirs. If Badenoch wants to make it a rights issue, she fails to do so if show can't demonstrate the universal application of her argument to all parties. If we don't all have the same, they aren't rights, they're privileges. I think Michael & Dalia were saying more or less the same - to me that's an indication this about a fundamental right. We have an innate common sense of the truth, we are just finding our own words to express it.
we elect politicians based on their values and how we think they will govern based on those values. If people don't think a politicians stated values will result in good governance then they have a right to not give that politician their support or vote. You don't get participation trophies in democracy
It is your right to believe whatever you want about a magic man in the sky and it is my right to think you are a fool for believing in ridiculous things.
She said that she comes from a deeply religious country. Are couriers religious? Kate should not have said what she thought in this case. At least not in public. She should be able to say what she feels but politicians and the truth no longer go hand in hand.
I haven’t seen anyone condemn Forbes, simply disagree with her? Think this just shows that the SDP aren’t the progressive left party that some people had thought it was.
Badenoch of course can claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is outside the Equality Minister's domain so she did not say anything. In fact she was not asked to comment on that one whilst her comment was directly sought here. However, of course the fact that nobody from the governing party said anything and no Tory press said anything when they are so desperate to shout Starmer down at every turn is very telling about the current state of affairs surrounding Middle Eastern politics. By the way all those who seem to be in love with PR, look at Israel carefully. PR itself is not some panacea, just like Brexit was not.
What teachers can and cannot teach is not a freedom of speech issue, the curriculum is not based on teacher's individual beliefs, so I think that part of your argument against what she said is a little weak. The only consequence of free speech should be more free speech and people giving there opposing opinions not condemnation and 'cancellation'. Where Kemi is disingenuous on this issue is that she's part of a government that is banning peaceful protest (see big brother watch for how scarily deep this goes) and weaponising freedom of speech in such a way that now its worryingly seen by some on the left as a right wing talking point.
Actually "The Bible" does NOT even mention homosexuals, let alone say it's a sin! The New Testament books (Christian Bible) were written by Christians in the first century AD (between 1 and 100 AD). The book of Leviticus (which is the text rereferred to with homophobic gibberish by - a mistranslation as it actually DOESNT say man should not lay with a man, it actually says man should not lay with a CHILD) is NOT PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE; it wasn't written until the 13th Centaury - fully 1,300 years AFTER the Messiah's (Jesus Christ) teaching or any other Christian profits, so no-one alive the time of Christ was even alive; it was just "made up" at the time for some reason - perhaps as a way of controlling priests at the time as too many were being tempted or whatever, we can only guess. It is fair to say that Leviticus 18:22 is no more part a genuine part of the bible than someone TODAY writing a book "God says its a sin to use solar panels, and we must continue to burn fossil fuels" & declaring it to be Christian teachings - it is nothing but a clear & blatant manipulation of the population with LIES relying on ignorance & bigotry to not fact check!
Tim, I'm not so sure that you are correct. The NEW testament was written, there is a disagreement on the dates, many years after the events. The OLD testament, however, was written before the birth of Christ, in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Hebrew had died out by the time of Christ and they say he spoke Aramaic - the language still exists today and about 250,000 people speak it, mainly in Syria. There, apparently, is a single reference to (anti) homosexuality in the bible - Leviticus 18:22 - however, this pales into insignificance when one considers the number of entries that legitimise slavery. If it can get things so badly wrong on slavery, why does anybody give it any credence, whatsoever?
@@kieran2842 @Kieran actually the original Leviticus (in reference to human sex) specifically only talks about incest being a sin; not having sex with parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc. The only reference to man lying with man is specifically prohibiting incestuous sex between men, implying that sex between men who are not related is allowed - by specifically only saying incestuous homosexuality was a sin it implied all other homosexuality was not, in the same way a sign on a shop saying "closed on Sundays" implies it is open all other days except sunday. It was not until 1,300 AD (as I said) that an interpretation was rewritten, so my point about some random guy rewriting it in a way to agree with his own personal views has no religious weight.
Conviction politicians are as rare as rocking horse shit, which tends to be undervalued. Kate Forbes made it very clear that she would not vote for homosexual marriage, and her constituents would know (assuming they got to know their MSP before erecting her) where she stood on this. Religious belief and conscience are not incompatible, and the one often informs the other. If you are representing your constituents, you need to understand whether or not the majority who elected you share your beliefs. It's worth listening to ALL she says on these issues, not merely selecting the bits that can be turned into controversy. Whether or not you share her belief, the fact that she is prepared to follow your conscience regardless of cost to herself speaks of her quality. It's the easiest thing in the world to put expediency ahead of conscience. Mrs Badenoch, for all her talk about religious dominance in her country has her eyes clearly on the prize which appears to be power at any cost. That's the contrast.
One other reason Kate Forbes may have gained some support on an identity politics basis is that she's a Gaelic speaker, and I think the only one ever on the SNP front bench (subject to correction on that). Oh, and If you mention the above, English people, it's roughly "Gaahlic", please, not "Gaylic".
Kemi is absolutely right in everything she said - well done Kemi for having the guts to stand up for truth and justice - there are many of us who support you
Really!?!? Bad enough thinks it easy to lie in politics? Colour me shocked. It IS good to see a politician NOT lie, Ms Badenough. Perhaps you could take note? It’s the fault of the unseriousness of the electorate who didn’t get that someone Fundamentally Religious will want and try to roll back freedoms of other people. 🫣
This is how all political parties have functioned since the inception of the concept. Nothing has come to anything, its always been the case. Also if the party line is not hating lgbt people then thats a good dogmatism to have and indicates societal progress.
@@themanwiththegoldengun1998 Freedom of speech goes both ways. You're free to have your shitty opinion, and people are free to call your opinion shitty. Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom from critique.
It's not that the opinion doesn't "tow the line". I think most of us here have opinions that don't tow the line, being as Novara is well to the left of both major political parties. It's that it's a bad opinion. Like if she had come out and said murder is fine, that would be her opinion but I'd say it was disqualifying. And would you sit there and say it was wrong to condemn her for not "towing the line" on murder? I think not. The reason you say it in this case is only because you have at least some sympathy with her opinion on gay marriage (you don't necessarily agree, I don't know, but you have some sympathy). I don't. It is a red line issue for me.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
We are being told that it's good that this Christian fundamentalist politician is being honest. This shows how low we have fallen. Honesty shouldn't be applauded - it should be a basic expectation.
I have strong religious beliefs that include my hope for others but not my belief that I should control others and their personal choices.
Exactly
That's the nature of rights, we must all have 'em in equal measure. The only justification for imposing one person's over another' is in preventing a greater loss of rights.
Honestly also I think that support for gay rights is such a no-brainer that if someone doesn't support gay rights and says they will actively use their political power to vote against equality, I think it is perfectly valid not to trust their judgement to be oh so lovely, and progressive, and not-at-all authoritarian on other issues either
Yeah, it's not about Kate Forbes' religious beliefs, it's about her saying she would "vote her conscience" on policies effecting marriage equality. She's going to govern based on her religious beliefs.
Dalia and Michael are both right, not having ever heard her speak and only very vaguely knowing who she since I'm American, without knowing any of the context, the clip was mostly not objectionable. However, hearing all of it shows how hypocritical the Tories always are yet again. Thanks for another great video! I like trying to keep up with what's going on in the UK and Novara is a great resource.
What a lot of nonsense, is it wrong as an individual to VOTE with your conscience? I would like to think that all politicians vote with their conscience when the time comes rather than these fools that only vote for what is seen as political correctness and promotion to appease the minority rather than the whole of the electorate, I wont mention the recent example in Scotland. Kate Forbes made it perfectly clear this was only her view.
What is being said here is that unless we fully endorse gay marriage, lets say, Trans ideals, we have no opinion and are bad people. This nonsense needs to STOP.
@@Weeman-v8n
Voting with conscience is generally seen as noble - depending on your principles of course. But a little different for anyone running for leader. 'These are our party principles - I mean, I will not be voting for them myself, of course, but...' etc.
@@Weeman-v8n she isn't put into power for her conscience
@Paul Molloy what's being said here is we know rights can be revoked if we don't continue to fight for them- the US is a glowing example of this
"It would be very easy to tell lies and get In to power" how nonchalant , it seems that its par for course that it doesn't matter if you lie
Well yeah, most of Westminster just repeats lies. It's not right but it is true 🤷♀️
We’ll, that’s how they usually get voted in. Tell them what you think they want to hear rather than what you mean. Weasel worded cheep talk that encourages political cynicism. Just what the powerful ordered.
It seems only one side can lie without impunity. If the other sides lie (or tells the truth, it seems) it becomes a BIG problem. If only we had an honest media.
Yeah the problem isn't her beliefs, she can believe what she wants. If it impacts her judgement within the position though it's a problem. Especially since the last census showed most of the UK isn't Christian anymore.
Isn't it democracy is supposed to work? She expressed her honest view, now it's up to SNP members to decide if she can represent them without compromising her conscience, or theirs. If they say she can't, she's at liberty to find, or form, another party to make her case directly to the electorate.
I'm a Christian and I love everyone , anyone can marry who ever they love for me, more love in the world is awesome
Doesn't that legitimise sodomy though? Shouldn't Christians try to stop people falling into sin where possible?
Not everyone wants to insert themselves in the private lives of other adults?
I’m
not interested in anyones else personal life, it’s
none of my business
, but it’s very concerning that
Forbes feels it ok to vote against gay marriage,because of her personal religious
convictions, that she’s
very well aware that those she represents don’t hold the views.
@@julielevinge266 but if you were a Christian, surely it should somewhat be your business if you don't want them to go to hell or fall into sin?
@@Dalibansoldier Never heard any Christians complaining about oral sex, or anal sex between men and women, which are both forms of ‘sodomy’ also. Judge not lest ye be judged.
@@Dalibansoldier Christianity - like most religions - has a rag-bag of 'principles' which you can use to back up doing whatever you want to do (e.g. owning slaves) or criticise anyone you don't like. For that matter, isn't it also a sin to 'cast the first stone'?
Spot on from Dalia. And shameful from Kemi.
Tory logic. She was truthful in her bigotry, which is more important than actually stopping bigotry.
You’re defining a person having personal views (e.g. marriage is a union between man + wife) as “bigotry” so stopping that = stopping people from having opinions.
It seems like you are the bigot here with some fascistic tendencies.
@@raph_csg Lol. I suggest you google the paradox of intolerance. You might learn something but I somehow doubt it. You come across as thick as mince.
@@christinalloyd9566 This is mostly based on your other comment but I can tell that, without question you are an absolutely toxic and narrow-minded individual.
You’re in a for a shock if you think you come out on top according to the “paradox of intolerance.” It’s people like you who would actively discriminate against billions of: Muslims, Christians, Jews and etc simply because they believe in a religion. Most of them would be perfectly fine with you being an atheist which is being tolerant of other people’s beliefs whereas YOU would do the complete opposite. You’re a bigot in every sense of the word and don’t ever forget that. People like YOU will be the detriment of society. People like YOU with your extreme intolerance are the ones trying to stop natural debate from happening.
Kate Forbes shared her opinion but wouldn’t force it upon anybody nor would she judge/condemn a person for disagreeing with her. Could you do the same? Probably not.
@@raph_csg How narrow minded of me that I don't believe in sky fairies. Have you read about the paradox of intolerance yet btw?
Also, the interviewer didn't ask her "Do you condemn Forbes?" He asked "Do you condemn those views." Her response was very disingenuous.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
That is actually a really good segment on wether freedom of speech can be weaponized to essentially stifle political debate and common sense decision making
I’m really encouraged by the discussion on Novara
I agree the question to Forbes was completely fair. It doesn’t harm my religious freedom to ask me about my theology. It’s actually a compliment.
It doesn’t threaten my religious freedom to worry it might infringe on your right to a private life or family life. It’s up to me to persuade you it won’t. That’s life in a democracy.
I think the public discussion of traditional Christian beliefs could be better - for example Forbes is not a Protestant Fundamentalist; she is a Reformed evangelical; the differences are important. But that’s as much to do with anti-intellectualism in the Church as it is to do with secularism.
Traditional religious communities - who share some of Forbes views- tend to exist on the bottom rung of society. The Tory party is the last group who should be speaking for them, in my view. And it’s very much in Tory interests to have religious and sexual minorities fear one another.
So, I think the legal and moral right to both privacy, a family life and the right to manifest your identity in public are ideals everyone can and should support.
No one should use their religion to decide how they vote or to make decisions in government. There should be a complete separation between church and state.
The right to follow a religion in private is a human right and should be protected. However when someone uses their religion in a way that has an unwanted impact on those who do not share the same faith then that becomes a breach of the right to not follow a religion.
The problem with Badenoch,s reasoning is that this is not about a member of the general public, it,s about a woman who wants to be creating legislation that effects everyone,s lives.
The Tory Party should not be dictating how the SNP should run their party, given their own bigotry. Religious beliefs have no place in politics period. MSP’s like Forbes cannot stand as it will have a detrimental impact on the trajectory of a progressive society. That’s why the SNP must choose Mhari Black as the next First Minister.
I don't think people who are devoutly religious can mix with politics. It's hugely problematic. The devout Christians I know actually share her views.
Kate Forbes probably shows that the SNP aren’t the progressive left party that people thought it was
As a Scottish voter and a gay man, feel very disenchanted right now. Over the years I've steadily grown to dislike the SNP more and more (I say that as an SNP voter.) I don't like any of the leadership contenders and to be honest, I don't think I'll vote for the party in the future now that Sturgeon is stepping down.
Absolutely not shocking that Badenoch wouldn't dare to condemn Forbes' homophobia, instead minimising it to just her "religious beliefs", considering her own track record. Like, this is the same person who had two single occupancy loos marked as "men's" and "women's" at a venue she was speaking at because they were penned as "gender neutral" - If even the mere suggestion that something may be even a slight nicety for queer people bothers you to the point that you have something that pathetic done to make yourself more comfortable (or make yourself more palatable to a certain voting demographic...) then I think it's safe to assume that you are cut from the same cloth as Forbes et al.
God, completely missed the part where she says she admires her honesty...! Saying the quiet part out loud love
No one condemns her for her religion. They condemn her views. If her religion influences her to have abhorrent views, then no one is obliged to vote for her.
It's not the issue of Forbes having the opinion but people judging how she would govern or implement policy based on her beliefs.
If voters believe she won't be influenced they will support her, but if they don't believe her beliefs won't dictate how she governs then they won't vote for her.
Personally I don't yet think she has effectively shown her beliefs are not a factor in being first minister. But that seems to be partly the media as they ask how she would vote on an issue and not what she would do if a policy was put forward.
Given that she stated that she would have voted against equal marriage if she'd been an MSP when it was being passed, i personally take that to mean that if a piece of legislation that similarly goes against her religious beliefs was put forward in the future she would also not support it. And as first minister that would mean that legislation would likely never even see the light of day, let alone just not be passed into law. And a full on halt in all socially progressive legislation isn't something I would want to vote for. Thats accepting her promises that she wouldn't try to weaken or role back such rights that have already been passed into law. And if you take any politicians promises as binding then i'm sorry for your future disappointment
I don't think people should be condemned for expressing their beliefs. I'd rather know what they really believe rather than them say what they think people want them to say. Now that I know her beliefs, I know I wouldn't vote for her.
People whose decisions are influenced by their religious beliefs should NOT be in politics!
Yea it's the hypocrisy which points to a deeper bias
Poor Auntie Tom.
Forbes doesn't have to marry a woman if she doesn't want to, that is her freedom of conscience.
If her freedom of speech allows her to say it's wrong, it has to be another person's to say it isn't & she's wrong. It's also their freedom of conscience not to vote for her, especially if she'd use their mandate to impose her conscience over theirs.
If Badenoch wants to make it a rights issue, she fails to do so if show can't demonstrate the universal application of her argument to all parties. If we don't all have the same, they aren't rights, they're privileges.
I think Michael & Dalia were saying more or less the same - to me that's an indication this about a fundamental right. We have an innate common sense of the truth, we are just finding our own words to express it.
Ah! Kemi Badenoch. Every Bigot’s favourite black woman.
🤠💜
we elect politicians based on their values and how we think they will govern based on those values. If people don't think a politicians stated values will result in good governance then they have a right to not give that politician their support or vote. You don't get participation trophies in democracy
The ta;iban goven using their religious beliefs
It is your right to believe whatever you want about a magic man in the sky and it is my right to think you are a fool for believing in ridiculous things.
The guy interviewing her sounds like a David Firth character
what is achieved by forcing someone to condemn or condone a situation??
This is politics: condemning and condoning things is the entire game. It's like asking what the point of kicking the ball is at a football match.
@@tjenadonn6158 You could of just left at this politics because just like i thought it acheives nothing just like british politics right now
She said that she comes from a deeply religious country. Are couriers religious?
Kate should not have said what she thought in this case. At least not in public. She should be able to say what she feels but politicians and the truth no longer go hand in hand.
I haven’t seen anyone condemn Forbes, simply disagree with her?
Think this just shows that the SDP aren’t the progressive left party that some people had thought it was.
Like deployed 👍
Badenoch of course can claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is outside the Equality Minister's domain so she did not say anything. In fact she was not asked to comment on that one whilst her comment was directly sought here. However, of course the fact that nobody from the governing party said anything and no Tory press said anything when they are so desperate to shout Starmer down at every turn is very telling about the current state of affairs surrounding Middle Eastern politics. By the way all those who seem to be in love with PR, look at Israel carefully. PR itself is not some panacea, just like Brexit was not.
Forbes is free church of Scotland. At least not ( continuing)!
Wait wait. Is Mike gay?.🤯 Lol no clue. Haha. 🏳️🌈 Welcome bro
He has mentioned it once or twice, but I already had my suspicions and I'm straight 😁
@@roderickjoyce6716 Joyce and her infamous gaydar. Lol
what is hate?
What teachers can and cannot teach is not a freedom of speech issue, the curriculum is not based on teacher's individual beliefs, so I think that part of your argument against what she said is a little weak. The only consequence of free speech should be more free speech and people giving there opposing opinions not condemnation and 'cancellation'. Where Kemi is disingenuous on this issue is that she's part of a government that is banning peaceful protest (see big brother watch for how scarily deep this goes) and weaponising freedom of speech in such a way that now its worryingly seen by some on the left as a right wing talking point.
Actually "The Bible" does NOT even mention homosexuals, let alone say it's a sin! The New Testament books (Christian Bible) were written by Christians in the first century AD (between 1 and 100 AD). The book of Leviticus (which is the text rereferred to with homophobic gibberish by - a mistranslation as it actually DOESNT say man should not lay with a man, it actually says man should not lay with a CHILD) is NOT PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE; it wasn't written until the 13th Centaury - fully 1,300 years AFTER the Messiah's (Jesus Christ) teaching or any other Christian profits, so no-one alive the time of Christ was even alive; it was just "made up" at the time for some reason - perhaps as a way of controlling priests at the time as too many were being tempted or whatever, we can only guess.
It is fair to say that Leviticus 18:22 is no more part a genuine part of the bible than someone TODAY writing a book "God says its a sin to use solar panels, and we must continue to burn fossil fuels" & declaring it to be Christian teachings - it is nothing but a clear & blatant manipulation of the population with LIES relying on ignorance & bigotry to not fact check!
Tim, I'm not so sure that you are correct. The NEW testament was written, there is a disagreement on the dates, many years after the events. The OLD testament, however, was written before the birth of Christ, in both Hebrew and Aramaic.
Hebrew had died out by the time of Christ and they say he spoke Aramaic - the language still exists today and about 250,000 people speak it, mainly in Syria.
There, apparently, is a single reference to (anti) homosexuality in the bible - Leviticus 18:22 - however, this pales into insignificance when one considers the number of entries that legitimise slavery. If it can get things so badly wrong on slavery, why does anybody give it any credence, whatsoever?
@@kieran2842 @Kieran actually the original Leviticus (in reference to human sex) specifically only talks about incest being a sin; not having sex with parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc. The only reference to man lying with man is specifically prohibiting incestuous sex between men, implying that sex between men who are not related is allowed - by specifically only saying incestuous homosexuality was a sin it implied all other homosexuality was not, in the same way a sign on a shop saying "closed on Sundays" implies it is open all other days except sunday.
It was not until 1,300 AD (as I said) that an interpretation was rewritten, so my point about some random guy rewriting it in a way to agree with his own personal views has no religious weight.
Conviction politicians are as rare as rocking horse shit, which tends to be undervalued. Kate Forbes made it very clear that she would not vote for homosexual marriage, and her constituents would know (assuming they got to know their MSP before erecting her) where she stood on this. Religious belief and conscience are not incompatible, and the one often informs the other. If you are representing your constituents, you need to understand whether or not the majority who elected you share your beliefs.
It's worth listening to ALL she says on these issues, not merely selecting the bits that can be turned into controversy. Whether or not you share her belief, the fact that she is prepared to follow your conscience regardless of cost to herself speaks of her quality. It's the easiest thing in the world to put expediency ahead of conscience. Mrs Badenoch, for all her talk about religious dominance in her country has her eyes clearly on the prize which appears to be power at any cost. That's the contrast.
What’s Humza Yousaf’s position on same sex marriage as a Muslim? He was suspiciously unavailable for the marriage equality vote.
He voted yes on the 1st reading and was busy trying to save a life on the second
@@Aarenby save a life?
@Little Cat Feet yeah- getting someone from detained by Pakistan irrc
One other reason Kate Forbes may have gained some support on an identity politics basis is that she's a Gaelic speaker, and I think the only one ever on the SNP front bench (subject to correction on that).
Oh, and If you mention the above, English people, it's roughly "Gaahlic", please, not "Gaylic".
The pronunciation depends on whether it's Scots or Irish Gaelic. It's the latter in Ireland.
That’s a first. I actually agreed with Kemi Badenoch and I am far from straight.👍🏾👊🏿
Kemi is explicitly anti Equal marriage
Kemi is absolutely right in everything she said - well done Kemi for having the guts to stand up for truth and justice - there are many of us who support you
You like kemi don't believe in LGBT rights?
Really!?!?
Bad enough thinks it easy to lie in politics? Colour me shocked.
It IS good to see a politician NOT lie, Ms Badenough. Perhaps you could take note?
It’s the fault of the unseriousness of the electorate who didn’t get that someone Fundamentally Religious will want and try to roll back freedoms of other people.
🫣
Limited Edition Coconut Oreo
What has it come to when your opinion gets condemned for not towing the line
Shameful
This is how all political parties have functioned since the inception of the concept. Nothing has come to anything, its always been the case.
Also if the party line is not hating lgbt people then thats a good dogmatism to have and indicates societal progress.
@@zzmoonz I really can't see how its societal progress or lack of, no dialogue, no debate, just stigmatisation for an opinion
@@themanwiththegoldengun1998 Freedom of speech goes both ways. You're free to have your shitty opinion, and people are free to call your opinion shitty. Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom from critique.
@@tjenadonn6158, by your tone I suspect your not agreeable to my opinion, but your right, it works both ways
It's not that the opinion doesn't "tow the line". I think most of us here have opinions that don't tow the line, being as Novara is well to the left of both major political parties. It's that it's a bad opinion. Like if she had come out and said murder is fine, that would be her opinion but I'd say it was disqualifying. And would you sit there and say it was wrong to condemn her for not "towing the line" on murder? I think not. The reason you say it in this case is only because you have at least some sympathy with her opinion on gay marriage (you don't necessarily agree, I don't know, but you have some sympathy). I don't. It is a red line issue for me.
Michael on 🔥