Political Correctness: an excuse for inequality
Its no stranger to the internet either. Whilst browsing a few political blogs the other day (listed in my links column), i came across the blog entitled "Anthropax", run by an ex-colleague of mine from Monmouth School, and a known supporter of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Whilst browsing through his archives however (October 2004), I came across the link entitled "Ignorant Bigots"! Through curiosity, i decided to select the link, only to discover that the link address lead to the website:
www.christianvoice.org.uk
...run by a leading Christian group within the UK, who comment on recent political matters through the eyes of British Christians.
Im not saying that the Anthropax website should be banned from the internet for all eternity (after all, he is entitled to freedom of speech)...but i couldn't help thinking what the situation would be like if the website address was slightly different.
What if I posted exactly the same link definition ("ignorant bigots"), but to these websites instead:
I cant help but think that if I went ahead with this idea, i would be branded either an anti-Semitic ******* or a racist islamophobe. But yet, if someone calls the Christian Voice Organisation "ignorant bigots"...nothing is done, and the matter is simply left to rest.
And this is exactly the point im making. Why is it okay for people to insult Britains most wide-spread religion, but politically in-correct to insult the minority religions of this country?
Political correctness appears to be nothing more than a way of keeping the public majority silent, silencing our view points while those of the minority groups are entitled to express theirs. If these people want equality in this country, then they should recognise that insulting Britains majority groups is not the way to go about it. The majority of this country used to have every right that our laws allowed...it now seems that its the minority of this country who have those rights, while the majority groups are left to stand still and deal with modern day political correctness.
New Labour: the party of political correctness?
posted by James.R.Skinner at 2:18 pm
20 Comments:
I'm a Christian, and find the content of the Christian Voice website dreadful. It's not a 'politically correct' attack on them because they are Christians, but because they are, indeed, ignorant bigots. Am I not allowed to be critical of extremist elements in my own religion? James, you should realise that 'Christianity' is not one, huge, catch-all thing, but made up of many different groups.
Read the post and comment I made here:
http://politicalcrossroads.blogspot.com/2006/02/blasphemous-rumours.html#comments
I think the categorisation of that organisation, to which you have taken exception, is no more than the unvarnished truth (in my opinion). Whilst I might not have expressed myself in quite that colourful way, I share the sentiments which I think lie behind that categorisation.
I have visited the websites relating to the other two religions of the "children of the book" (i.e. Judaism and Islam) and had not previously been aware of either previously so am unable to comment on their standing within their respective communities and the ways in which they carry out their respective missions, but I can think, off-hand, of persons professing each of these two faiths whom I would certainly categorise in a similar manner.
Excuse me for interrupting your debate, but I couldn't help but notice the "I'm a Christian" statement from Royston.
I'm pleased you've been converted. What made you change from an "athiest who sometimes drops the 'a'" to a Christian?
I can see why many people would take offense to the articles published on the Christian Voice website itself. Because they take a religious approach on things (such as homosexuality), then they are obviously not going to condone such actions, as they feel it is immoral to what God wants.
However, this does not change the argument i am stating. How is it okay to slander a religious website such as this, but considered "politically incorrect" to slander any other website of another faith?
Oh yes, and relating to Sams comment, since when did you suddenly convert Anthropax, or is there something you would like to tell us?
By whom is it considered politically incorrect? Certainly not by me. It seems like you have got yourself into a bit of a straw man argument here. I am perfectly happy for Christian Voice to spew their hatred, that's what free speech is all about, but they are bigots. I'm not going to refrain from saying things which I believe to be true and can back up by quoting their copious abhorrent writings.
So was the last and the current Pope. Much the same could be said about the hierarchy (which doesn't really exist because it's organised differently, but let that pass), of the Moslem faith - Iqbal Sacranie is a prime example in this country.
People who profess a religious faith, of any kind, should be entirely free to do so, but this is a secular country and I see no reason for persons representing any religious faith to be represented in our Parliament. If individuals wish to try to get elected, or are in their personal capacities made Peers, then they can of hold their position in Parliament like anyone else, the fact that they happen also to be senior within the hierarchy of one or other religion is irrelevant, but I object strongly to them being present there solely by virtue of their religious position.
I didn't suddenly convert, I have always been a member of the Anglican Church. I lapsed for a few years, but have since un-lapsed.
I have just been having a look at the 'Christian Voice' website and clicked on to the 'True Visions: Political Correctness' link - it purports to be a completely independent website, but in fact is registered in the name of one 'Stephen Green' with an address in Carmarthen, even has his telephone number, and street address. The 'Christian Voice' website is registered by, guess who: "Stephen Green t/a Christian Voice" - although on that website the registrant's address is not given, instead the address listed is in Surbiton, presumably the domain registrar.
So it's all the same person!
You have to read quite a way down the 'True Visions: Political Correctness' homepage to get a real idea of what a self-serving pernicious load of codswallop is being promoted there. It's not quite so unsubtle as most of what this person seems to do, but it quickly reveals itself for what it is. I'd love to know just how many members 'Christian Voice' has; I strongly suspect it is not many; Stephen Green, the 'National President', is always remarkably coy on this subject when asked by interviewers. Of course, even if it is, in reality, just he alone, he has every right to continue saying what he does - I'd rather have people like him freely speaking than risk him/them being driven underground. Five minutes into a televised interview he quickly reveals himself to be, well, shall be say, a person of 'extremely strong views' - good luck to him; he sells himself well to those few who think as he does and as for the rest, well I imagine that most of us simply snigger, that's certainly what I do. No doubt some divine entity will strike me down for writing something so crass, I suppose; I'll take my chances ;)
On the topic of Politcal Correctness, I went to the Union tonight to hear Jeremy Clarkson and Andy Wilman from BBC's Top Gear. Both were very anti-political correctness and got a lot of support for it. A lot of PC-ness is just nonsense - take the fact that Jeremy has been asked by the BBC not to use the phrase 'dinner party' on TV because "it's elitist". Well, really.
But there are, unfortunately some worrying undertones and the religious issue identified by James here is potentially more of an issue. Anthropax should be entitled to say what he likes about Christian Voice (I know nothing about them and have therefore no opinion). However if I want to (for example) condemn the Muslim extremists who act so disgustingly, I should be entitled to my opinion without being branded 'racist' or told to keep my opinions to myself.
Im not saying that the website itself is the holiest website in Christianity...if anything...it probably causes more offense than faith in God.
However, the point im making is what if the website was different (such as for example: www.islam.co.uk)...would people still be prepared to brand them as ignorant bigots? Its fine to criticise something from Christianity, but if someone criticises anything from any other faith, then the usual "ah, i cant say that cos thats racist"...or "better not say that because thats offensive to muslims" comes into play.
It was the same with the Islamic cartoons published a few weeks ago (mocking the muslim prophet mohammed). Muslims believe its fine to publish cartoons portraying Jews as Fagan-like monsters (published all over Arab newspapers), but if anything is done to them of that sort, then it seems that all hell breaks loose. Why is it okay for them to do things like that, but un-acceptable for us?
...and by the way, what JP has said is exactly the point that i am making. If freedom of speech is supposingly accepted everywhere, why am I (and many other people) told to "keep our opinions to ourselves" when we have something criticising to say about other people, such as muslim extremists as JP so rightly says?
Who has told you to keep quiet about Moslem extremists, pray do tell?
I've written my pretty aggressive posts in my own little blog about the Muslim Council of Britain and it main spokesperson Iq
... sorry, pressed wrong key before I had finished.
The first time I recall writing about the MCB (probably in 2000 or 2001 on my 'main website', before my blog started) was when William Hague, then Leader of the Conservatives, seemed to think Sacranike was a very reasonable person; I never have. At the time I was of ocurse still a Conservative member.
I too was shocked and outraged that the placard bearers against the cartoons were not arrested immediately and that a van driver who dared to intervene, quite peacefully, was roundly ticked-off by a policeman. I can't recall if I wrote about that in my own blog, I think I probably did, but I certainly spoke about it on my podcast of a few weeks back. On balance, after a lot of thought and hesitation, I decided the law against religious hatred was probably a bad idea, becasue it would have all sorts of other unintended consequences.
What im saying is that its the general feeling around this country. For instance, a story from the Independant revealed that the BBC had told its presenters not to use the word "terrorist" to describe the July 7th bombers as it might offend certain muslim groups!
Another incident could also be seen when extremists protested in London about the European cartoon publications. Even though they shouted death threats and promised more terrorist attacks on Britain, the police did nothing to stop them...simply because of the fear that they might be branded racist. In relation, i do find it quite peculiar that a innocent anti-war protester was arrested a few months earlier (under anti-terrorist legislation) outside parliament for reciting the names of dead British soldiers...and thats right...you guessed it...she was White and English.
I do agree with James here, political correctness has gone way over the top in this country, and the issue about Christian Voice is no exception. I dont agree with what Christian Voice say, especially with their views on New Orleans, but the principle behind it remains the same. Would there be any more outrage from bloggers if the address was an islamic website or something? Something tells me yes.
To a large extent I would agree with the general view of Christian Voice, however its a pretty soft target to go after. They are hardly 'extreme' when compared to our own homegrown Islamists, 40% of whom want Sharia Law in the UK!
But I note from Anthropax's blog that he only goes for soft targets like Israel and Christians, so I suppose we shouldnt expect anything else.
I wouldnt say i agree with Christian Voices views...as i have noted from Bill Camerons comments, there is question to whether they are actually a group of people, or just one (rather excentric) person. But you do make a valid point. Considering 40% of British muslims want Sharia law within the UK itself, who's the more excentric...Christian Voice, or "British" muslims?
i think you'll find it's eccentric, not excentric. I would have more respect for the right if they could spell!
I quite agree. It is ridiculous to think that one can say potentially harmful things about a Christian group and nothing be done, yet be warned and the possibility of prosecution for speaking out against Muslim extremists.
What this shows is that we don't live in a truly secular country boasting freedom of speech. The left-wing liberals seem to think we do, yet the reality is we don't.
Then again, you can hardly blame anyone. We've had years of Labour in power, and to be honest, the Tories prior weren't much better (but they still were, even if not much).
What a great site term insurance agent in oh used lexus rx 300 rear bumpers beckett football card monthly Accounting financial Remove gray hair naturally Oil pump buick 430 order tadalafil web 1995 suzuki gsxr 600 pics Pokemon goldelectric gate opener wellbutrin 2bside 2beffect voice over ip atandt Sentinel home security cabinet ordering imitrex
Post a Comment
<< Home