Sunday, 26 February 2012

Compare & Contrast

It is reported that Frank Carson counted Bernard Manning as a friend and defended him against charges of racism. “How could anyone call Bernard a racist?” he wondered. “He even had black horses at his funeral”.


In the same newspaper we read of a man who, having placed his belongings including a scarf on the belt to pass through a scanner, noticed a woman in a hijab pass through without showing her face. Querying what would happen were he to cover his face with his scarf resulted in a lengthy questioning session in which he was accused of making a racist remark. After considerable time, during which the police were called and management from BAA, a compromise was reached in which this man agreed that his remark could be considered offensive to a Muslim. So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?


How have we allowed ourselves to be conditioned to the extent that free speech and even our private thoughts can be held to be verboten? As with the health & safety brigade, so have the politically correct brigade built an industry, ones that the taxpayers fund.


Frank Carson was renowned for suffering from what might be called verbal excess, yet this man - because of the pc brigade - was prevented from talking the hindi leg of a donkey. Is it not better that we allow a thousandfold abuses of free speech than to deny free speech? Likewise, does not free speech carry with it the another freedom; to listen?


To underline my point that we do indeed live under a system of democratised dictatorship, I am reminded of a quote by Herbert Hoover:
"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."
 On that note - and to borrow a legal phrase - I believe I am entitled to say that I rest my case!

10 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

Blogged on that myself today, the double standards are sickening to say the least

TomTom said...

So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?

It is whatever THEY want it to be. Remember that Nazism "empowered" every petty bureaucrat and misfit to persecute anyone below them.

The nature of totalitarian systems is to give free rein to petty authoritarianism. Human nature is simply to exploit any opportunity to exercise power over another and to reduce the other to submissive serfdom......it is the nature of "Civil Society" in the Locke Hayek tradition that Free Men can oppose and express "inalienable rights"

The problem with the British today is that they are exceptionally poorly educated in the widest sense of civil society, and are submissive to a painful degree with a depressive and sullen countenance.

Walk around streets of Northern cities for example and observe. It is so much like East Germany - pasty glum faces and a morose countenance tinged with surliness - beaten and broken people.

john in cheshire said...

Can I be offended by the presence of muslims wearing outfits that cause me distress and fear?

BJ said...

I'm not entirely convinced by Tom Tom's "poorly educated" argument WfW - I have always felt that when dealing with PC our need to be polite gets in the way.

I wouldn't throw around some of the words found offensive by others but I sometimes feel like doing so just to make a point.

Heaven forbid, but any atrocity committed on this island would quickly change that.

PeterCharles said...

"So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?" Well yes, WfW, thanks to a certain T Blair. What do you think he was doing adding 3500+ criminal offences to British law?

Consider rape, any act of non-consensual sexual intercourse. Under current law the defendant is required to show that his belief in consent was reasonable, in other words, the presumption when a complaint is made is that consent was not given, or to spell it out more clearly as that seems on the surface to be reasonable, the defendant is presumed guilty unless they can show otherwise. Fortunately juries are loathe to convict in strict accordance with the law, hence the low conviction rate, but not all cases are settled rationally.

Take fraud. If you take out a mortgage and in the application innocently exaggerate your earnings say (quite possible for someone engaged in piecework, self employment, etc) even if you pay off that mortgage and never fall into arrears, under current law you will be guilty of fraud.

I could go on with dozens of examples, public order offences, you are guilty if police or other people believe your actions could lead to public distress or alarm (the recent case of the nude walker comes to mind) or the penalties for not complying with regulatory instruction, it was originally, and is now, an offence to use an untaxed vehicle on the public highway, however you are now required to provide a SORN for any untaxed vehicle in your possession, even if it has stood on blocks in a private garage fore ten years. If you do not provide a SORN you are required to pay any road tax accruing from the last tax or SORN point plus a standard fee. Again in simple terms the law has been modified to make you guilty and in this case you can not even prove yourself innocent.

Anonymous said...

"Can I be offended by the presence of muslims wearing outfits that cause me distress and fear?"

No

In the same way that only white people can be racist - look at the case of the four drunk Somali girls taht beta up a white girl shouting "die you white bitch" were not convicted of a racially motivated offense (just a straightforward assault) and got suspended sentences, whereas the white Croydon Tram lady who clearly uses racist language onbly got remanded into custody over Christmnas and New Year before even getting to a trial.

Anonymous said...

This is yet another astonishing example of how low our country has fallen. It is a complete disgrace that a law abiding citizen can be treated like a crimminal for merely making an intelligent observation.

He made no suggestion as to what he thought! He merely asked a question! If offence was taken? Then it was purely based on an assumption. This is complete and utter nonsense.

I used to work as a Customs Officer. As you can imagine we weren't always popular with everybody and inevitably we used tome in for "a lot of verbal" As long as it was not of a threatening nature, along with my colleagues I ignored it all. More to the point we would never take umbrage just because a member of the public asked an inconveient question which cast doubt on our logic. Instead we accepted that people were entitled to voice their opinion. Why has that acceptance been removed?

Was the gentleman in question arrested? If not he should have insisted on his right to proceed into the departure lounge. If this had happened to me I would kick up one hell of a stink.

It had been established that this chap posed no security risk. There was absolutely no justification for airport security or the police to unlawfully detain him.

I believe that this country and the attitudes of its people have been subverted by the Frankfurt school marxists. We have not arrived where we are now by accident. Instead it is the very design of those who are destroying us!!

TomTom said...

The most fanatical PC dogmatists are usually women as they were in this case with Fireman Sam

Rootar said...

I remember when that Sian Williams woman from the BBC interviewed Carson the day after Manning's death. She spent the whole interview trying to blacken Manning as a racist. Next up was Richard Briers interviewed about something different and she was all sweetness and light. Cow.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

All comments so far make perfectly valid and cogent points. To TT and PC I can but say: I know I know - but hell, we can still state the obvious, can't we........?

QM: Great minds?

BJ: Well I think I may just start 'throwing around' some of those words that are found to be unacceptable/disagreeable..... Here's hoping I get arrested - I believe I'm allowed a few words in court.......?