The War on Political Correctness

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by sjrw

A white driver would say something like "You effing black prat" whereas a black driver would say "goodness me you are not a good driver" - I DON'T think so... It would be "You effing white twat" I can see nothing racist in comments like that - We ALWAYS pick on the most obvious trait of the person we are flaming - it just happens to be colour sometimes.

Mate, I think that is a generalisation too far and wholly unsupportable.

If someone cuts me up on the road, then they are a 'dozy twat': I neither seek nor enquire as to their race or ethnicity - why would I? If someone's a dick, then they're a dick - colour et al doesn't/shouldn't enter into it.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by sjrw

I'd be interested to hear what those same texts have to say on homosexuality.

OK, it might help here if you have a rudementary grasp of, say, even the Christian gospels?

The Bible. Essentially two books: the Old and the New Testaments.

The Old Testament is the one which the Jews still hold to be the real deal Neil (what they revere as and refer to as the Torah). This is the 'fire and brimstone', 'eternal fires of Hell and damnation' etc. gig. A cracking read, but not something you'd lay on the kids as bedtime story material. Eye for an eye, wiping out of whole tribes and all that.

The New Testement - because you can't hope to conduct a society solely under the teachings of the OLD T, without there being unacceptable and unworkable levels of misery, wholesale slaughter and carnage - is the one which was introduced to counter and balance some of the worst excesses of the OLD T, and where we are taught and requested to love our fellow man (no sexual connotation intended ) as ourself, turn the other cheek in conflict and generally love thy neighbour - it's quite open about that last bit too, and without caveat emptor: it doesn't say, anywhere, "Love thy neighbour - as long as, and on the premise that he/she is of a race, colour, creed, sexual orientation or religious bent with which you happen to agree..."

And along with circumcision for men and laws against sex with animals and eating pig flesh - these things, at the time, made perfect sense as personal hygene - in the days of JC - was not all that it might have been. So to prevent disease, in the heat of the Middle East, the foreskin came off as a matter of course. Personally I've never held with the mutilation of the body just sos you can pay homage to the deity of your choice, but there you go.

Are we making progress yet?

[Mr T.]

And then you get shite like this.


From The Times:

January 19, 2005

Muslim groups complain of Islamophobia on TV
By Adam Sherwin

MUSLIM groups demanded an end to “Islamophobic” dramas after the latest series of the US television thriller 24 portrayed a middle-class Muslim family as terrorists.

The Muslim Council of Britain has called for a meeting with the controllers of BSkyB, which will screen the series this month. In America, Fox, which produces the series, has agreed to allow the Council on American-Islamic Relations to make a public service announcement after episodes. The Washington-based group said that the portrayal of a family as a terrorist “sleeper cell” could cast suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and promote Islamophobic stereotypes. Fox said it would remove potentially stereotypical aspects after representations from Muslim groups.

# Adverts to promote lastminute.com holidays showing women in bikinis were offensive to Muslims, Britain’s advertising watchdog will rule today. Complaints that they were demeaning to women have been upheld because lastminute.com did not respond.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there are no Muslim extremist sleeper cells, are there not? Err...OK.

Then we'll just suspend reality (like we did with the Irish - and we've been making quality films and programmes about and reflecting the 'Troubles' for decades with out any trouble) just to suit the Muslims, shall we?

And we've also had adverts showing families on the beach (men, women and kids) in simming cozzies in any number of destinations for as long as I can remember and now a handful, a massive minority, 'demands' that we now quit?! F*Ck that.

OK, here's a deal: we'll consider bowing to their 'demands' when the countries from whence either they or their forebears came allow anything resembling a plural democracy and not just the tyranny of a corrupt theocracy; stop treating, by rite, their women like cattle, slaves or both and learn how to live in a wider world and stop killing those who might simply disagree with their views and way of life - like several Dutch artists and (gay, as it happens) Members of Parliament. And the Netherlands is often held up as the very model of tolerance - not any more: their folks have had enough of it and are bringing in policy to reflect a change in public will.

Is it any wonder, given the state of their forebears' countries, that they feel the Western democracies in which they have settled over the years, are an easier target to 'bring to heel' than attempting to redress their former countries of domicle? And we rol over and allow it? In which parallel universe can that be right?

And seeing as we're talking about varying elements of intolerance in this thread: if the cringing PC toadies who make policy in this and other Western countries don't cease kowtowing to every bit of loony demand and and knee-jerk reaction to suit same, then the larger majority (and alas the bands of counter-zealots/bigots) will simply have enough and react in a way they won't like. We have models to proove same - Germany 1934, anyone? Oswald Moseley?

And back on topic: we have a very rich tradition in the UK of making challenging and engaging TV, drama, film and documentary on any number of topics - it has never suited nor been loved by all: and that is its intrinsic charm and value.

Jerry Springer: The Opera....I've seen it, I didn't like or agree with all of it: it doesn't want to make me smash windows, ban it, complain about it or prevent others from seeing it.

But then again, we have a history of plural, liberal democracy - other countries, and their vocal mouth-pieces do not. But if they want to live here, I guess they best get used to it and not try and tell the rest of the population how to live their lives.

[sjrw]

A bit of healthy thought and discussion going on in here then...

It's a problem that no amount of government money and law is going to get rid of. Education is the only way to sort it out.

I blame the progressive education started in the 60s for it

[dry suit diver]

Originally Posted by Dinger

In general all of them speak out against it. But, for instance the Bible says alot of things that have been translated about 10times and altered, to say the least, by those in 'power'. It does say that "man should not lie with man" etc but it also says "Love thy neighbour as thyself", and that being one of the 10 Commandments I would have thought that is has more 'importance' than words in the Old Testament.

Dinger

the quote from leviticus is "that man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman", my interpretation to this is -choose one or the other not both-
i.e. homo sexual ok heterosexual ok bisexual not ok

personally i couldnt care what you prefer ,same as i do not care what colour you are ,but i do not like the french

[Mark Davies]

You're really on it today, aren't you Bren?

You know me - I like you am just as pissed off with all the PC correctness as anyone, if not more. As a serving officer with GMP I've had it rammed down my throat for years! It would be great if we could just get on with life and ignore these things just like the 'non-issues' that they ought to be - race, religion, sexuality being irrelevant in most matters.

The point that I was trying to make is that such inconsequential and unintentional 'slips' as the one I commented on, only serve to justify what these action groups are constantly going on about. It perpetuates the situation and in the minds of these PC activists, justifies their existence. I wish they'd just shut up and go away so that we can all get on with living life hapilly together - but they are not going to do that as long as bigots keep opening their mouths and other people keep saying the wrong thing unintentionally (as I suspect in the case in point). Can you blame them?

It's a continuous circle, and if we want to break it we should make every effort not to contribute to it.

The Birmingham play was a different matter and the actions of some shamed what is normally an extremely tollerant Sikh community. The play was not stopped for fear of offence, but on simple practical grounds as it was no longer safe to stay open. Frankly, if I'd been the local Chief Constable I would have drafted in as many officers as were necessary to ensure the play could stay on to the end of it's run. Look at the efforts gone to in ensuring the democratic rights of strike-breaking miners to go to work. This was no less important in terms of people exercising their lawful democratic rights to show a socially challenging play.

I dare say the prospect of images of police officers in conflict with an entirely minority crowd had some influence on the decision made - which is wrong. You can blame things like 'The Secret Policeman' and the rest of the continual bobby-bashing in the media for that situation. You can't endlessly hammer the police with accusations of racism and then not expect them to become over cautious in race related issues.

Then take the Jerry Springer thing. You say there's no way the BBC would air something as critical of the muslim faith. I'm not sure I'd agree. Jerry Springer was on the stage first, as was this play in Birmingham. Why shouldn't it make it's way to the screen? We've had edgy drama on gay issues (Queer as Folk). To be honest, I'd say this play is far more likely to be televised, now that it's had all this publicity.

What Jerry Springer did was show that there is in fact a level playing field after all - that it's not just Muslims who'll go up in arms at something that offends them. Middle class, middle England, white christians can get pissed off and protest as well. Perhaps the Muslim activists will take note and begin to realise that they are not necesarilly being victimised - this is just democracy in action. I think that is something we agree on.

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

but i do not like the french

Please don't tempt me

manteau,s'il vous plait !

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

Is it any wonder, given the state of their forebears' countries, that they feel the Western democracies in which they have settled over the years, are an easier target to 'bring to heel' than attempting to redress their former countries of domicle? And we rol over and allow it? In which parallel universe can that be right?

But then again, we have a history of plural, liberal democracy - other countries, and their vocal mouth-pieces do not. But if they want to live here, I guess they best get used to it and not try and tell the rest of the population how to live their lives.

Was desperately trying to stay out of this one, but what the hell.

My own take is that if you want to live in this country then you should attempt to fit in. Fine have your religion, your culture is also to be cherished, BUT don't attempt to impose your values on the society YOU have CHOSEN to join.

In short if you don't like it, go to a country that IS run according to the values that you subscribe to.


Waiter ! My outergarments please.

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

Perhaps the Muslim activists will take note and begin to realise that they are not necesarilly being victimised - this is just democracy in action.

Mark, you're having a laugh ? They'll never take note and democracy appears to be the very thing they wish to destroy.

[dry suit diver]

Originally Posted by Hoppy

Please don't tempt me

manteau,s'il vous plait !

why and what?