What a 'State' we are in

In writing the novel "1984" George Orwell devised a word "Newspeak" - one in which the state decided what the population should hear and in what 'form' they should hear it, ie any element of truth, or lack of, was inconsequential. This is now being applied today by those in positions of power, be that they occupy said positions of power elected, or as a result of 'placement'.

Muffled Vociferation links to a video by Pat Condell, someone, some would say, who speaks for a majority of Britain. This video is about multiculturalism and concentrates on the problem of Islam. It should be borne in mind that 'multiculturaliam' does not have to be confined to religion or race - but can be pertinent to certain sections of our society and which incorporates the social 'beliefs' and practises of different cultures. In the context of Islam Condell states:

"Multiculturalism would be a good thing if it was what it pretends to be, where everyone is equally respected and mutually enriched - what could be better? In practice, however, everyone has to focus on Islam. It means that everyone has to worry about what Islam might think about this or that aspect of life and adjust their perspective accordingly - have you noticed? And this is a problem we have with a whole host of very positive sounding words in that they have become multicultural words, in that they no longer mean what they say. These words now have a sugar-coating and a poison centre....."

Substitute the word homosexual, lesbian, black or ethic minority in place of Islam and the result is identical. In 'my day' the word 'gay' meant to be happy, light-hearted and generally pleased with life. Along come a minority who practice different sexual habits and they purloin the word 'gay'to describe their sexual differences. What is wrong with perfectly good words, that already exist in most dictionaries, to describe their preferences, namely homosexual or lesbian? Are they ashamed of those words? What is wrong with describing someone from Africa, or the West Indies, as 'Black' or in the plural as "Blacks"? Why is it wrong to address someone as 'Black' when those of black descent can address someone of white appearance as 'Honky'? Whilst the idea of 'multiculturalism' involves the idea that we have to accept other 'cultures', it also demands that each culture respect the 'names' by which each culture is known to the other.

I have neighbours, two doors down, of mixed marriage - he is of Indian descent and she is Zimbabwean and the 'agreement' between us is that what is 'given' will be 'returned' in the same 'humour'. We all 'laugh and joke' about our 'cutural differences' without any rancour or bad feeling - probably due to the fact we don't have the 'PC Brigade' overseeing and monitoring our conversations.

As an example of how we, as a people, are being 'conditioned' by the 'PC Brigade', I would draw reader's attention to this story in the Daily Telegraph. My neighbour's and my view were that the hotelier has been quite polite in that he only used the term 'poofters' - when he could have used other terms which have been and still are used by those members of the 'general population'. I have to return to the point made earlier: if those of black descent can refer to those of white descent as 'Honkies' why should those of us of heterosexual persuasion not refer to those of homosexual persuasion and beliefs as 'queers' or other terms - it is after all free speech, is it not.? It may be that the terms mentioned are offensive to some; to which I say: Get out into the real world.

Perhaps we need to remember that which we were told, as children, by our elders: Grow Up?