Incorrectly Political

Why do so many people think we live in a nanny state that prohibits freedom of speech about race, religion and sexuality?

I’m sure the observant among you will have heard complaints regarding political correctness poking an unnecessary nose into our affairs. There are stories of schools banning ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’, and claims that you can no longer say ‘black bag’ or ‘blackboard’. There are people who genuinely believe they lost out on a job because of positive discrimination, and there are parents who hear reports of no more school nativity plays and fear that Sharia is one step closer.  

The right wing media (for convenience I will use the term The Daily Mail), are the main propagators of these kind of stories. The Mail is famous for its open fear of immigration, non-Christian religion, homosexuality, and the general debauchery that occasionally blights today’s world. As a commercial publication, it relies upon scaring the living daylights out of UKIP voters as much as The Daily Sport relies on Katie Price dating suckers. Some members of the public, unfortunately, aren’t all equipped with either the ability, or the inclination to critique each item on the newsstand before they make their mind up. Mail readers tend to always be Mail readers. Worse still, Mail readers sometimes aren’t even readers. They are sons and daughters of Mail readers. They turn up to school, college or work already conditioned in the art of instinctive defence. Some desperately want to be able to use the word ‘Paki’, and all over they think they can see minorities getting away with much worse. They still can’t get their head around the whole N-word debate. They slowly accept the view that in a couple of years we’ll have to fight in the streets to put up Christmas lights. They are tragically undereducated on an already foggy issue.

On the other hand, the targets of the tabloids often appear to be asking for it. You only need to watch Question Time on a Thursday night and watch for the questions regarding religion, crime, and immigration. You suddenly feel a chill when you realise these people also operate behind closed doors. George Galloway blames the London citizens for Al Qaeda, Theresa May chastises Salman Rushdie for offending terrorists. The majority of the panel will also dodge questions about illegal immigration by talking irrelevantly about the benefits of legal immigration. They are unable to say the right thing because of political correctness, and end up being much more offensive. The reason why there is no uproar is because the newly offended are safe targets. In essence: you shouldn't offend a Christian but you are allowed to offend an atheist.

Have any of you got a sense of humour that goes close to the bone but you know your intentions are pure? Under new workplace laws, that kind of humour can get you fired. Why? Because your colleague may not get the nuances that a seasoned Larry David or Louis CK fan would, and this could ascend all the way to the top. What could once be registered as a friendship issue now has the long arm of the law flapping above it. Coffee breaks are now 15 minute intervals of forced banality. I’m not saying every waking moment should contain a philosophical debate but there should always be the opportunity for one, just as there should be opportunities for every sort of conversation. If we have free speech then anything is possible. You’re allowed to fight back, burst into tears or storm out of the room but you can’t stop people talking. You shouldn’t have the law on your side. This is basic stuff but the legal side of political correctness corrupts it.

If I’m being truly honest, I feel incredible anger when I hear ignorant and bigoted remarks. I desperately want the mouths saying them to shut. That is my heart though. My head tells me to allow them every right I allow myself. If it turns bad, there are proper laws to stop them going any further. I’ll be the judge of how offended I should be thank you very much. If someone starts to criticise my beliefs or lifestyle I do not want to be able to say to them: “let’s stop right there, you’re not allowed to say that kind of thing”. I want to be able to say: “You are an idiot sir, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to call me the same”.

So I suppose this blog entry has a couple of purposes. Firstly, I don’t want to hear any of you complaining that you have to substitute ‘Merry Christmas’ for ‘Happy Holidays’. Of course you don’t! Also, please don’t pretend that a Somali child won a place at a school because of their origins unless you have the paperwork to prove it. If a checkout worker pulls you up on calling a bin bag ‘black’, politely ask them what colour they would prefer you to use, but don’t claim that it is a worldwide epidemic. A cancelled nativity play isn’t Pearl Harbour; it is what is commonly known as ‘political correctness gone mad’. Treat it as such. Otherwise our society will look like a wounded animal and it may start to behave like one.

Now then, if you are the rule makers taking offence on other people’s behalf, then try to analyse why you do it. You will find that these rules are usually inspired by fear. Don’t insult Catholics in Northern Ireland; you’ll get a brick through the window. Don’t offend Islam or you’ll get a bomb in the post. Cowardly motives I’m sure you’ll agree, but at least they have a truth to them. After the storm has passed, however, these motives evolve into pure compassion for the offended with no defence for the offender. Often the supposedly offended don't even know it has happened; a bewildered middle manager has to inform them. What sense of logic and justice can possibly remain in such a situation?

So if you are an evolved primate at the human end of the scale then will you first try to avoid jumping to conclusions whenever you read a hazy tabloid article? Then you have the right to tackle the other side of the coin when you are confronted with a genuine bullshit law. Contact your local MP and tell them that you do not wish to live in a benign dictatorship where the party slogan is, “If you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all”. If he responds, “a lot of people could be offended by that”, then contact the Daily Mail and have your bank card ready.

What should we think of the EDL?

If you are unaware, there is a political organisation in this country called the English Defence League. Wikipedia describes them as "a far right group opposing what it considers to be the spread of Islamism...in the UK". From that description, you might be forgiven for immediately putting them in the 'BAD' group, alongside such creatures as Nick Griffin, Jerry Falwell, Enoch Powell et al.

Their own website, on the other hand, boldly displays a motto that reads, "Peacefully Protesting Against Islamic Extremism". That is an ethos that should feature in the manifestos of even the most liberal of any of the legitimate political parties. If anything, it is too soft. The true nature of Islamic Extremism sometimes begs for physical opposition. Is there smoke without fire here then? Why do BNP supporters and EDL members meet jovially in a political venn diagram?

As an atheist (or anti-theist depending on how deep you want to go), I am opposed to the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK. Church should be separate from state, and Sharia is probably the first church I'd want out. As a moral individual I do not want to ignore the atrocities carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. As a liberal, I want to have the right to criticise religion without any threat of having that taken away. Finally, as an Englishman, I absolutely resent any attack on Western democracy. Surely I should track down the next EDL rally with enthusiasm!

There is an elephant in this particular room though; A thought tormenting me as I stroll on down to the local community hall. Why do I know that the rally is going to feature many skin-heads? Why do I know that there will be football hooligans? Why can I predict with incredible certainty that some of the members will have ties to the National Front? If this is about opposing the beliefs of a self-confessed universal religion, then why are there racists there too? It’s not easy to explain.  

One reason for all of this is the connection to immigration. To a crude observer, Islam is a foreign religion. To use Pakistan as an example: Pakistani immigrants arrive here potentially bringing fundamentalist Islam with them. This would vex both the British National Party and the English Defence League. This appears to explain some of the common ground between them, and doesn’t get the anti-Islam boys into any trouble.

Another thing to take into consideration is that any political group with the sole intent of opposing a major ideology are going to attract members who are full of a certain type of anger. It is a generic anger that can be pushed in a variety of directions given enough persuasion. Tell a frustrated young man that his rival football team has fans who want to fight him and see what happens. Then once he’s fully heated, tell him that Muslims want to attack him. Then tell him it’s not Muslims, but brown and black people. Suddenly he’s walked through three factions without the slightest idea why. An organisation shouldn’t be judged on a few bad ones who slipped through because someone gave them the wrong information.  

It seems that Tommy Robinson (head of the EDL) has never publicly made a disparaging comment about another race, or advocated unprovoked violence against anyone. They will turn heads because of the nature of offense associated with Islam. People will call them Islamaphobic, but a phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of a Sharia state is completely rational.

Does that make it clear? I hope so.

....Wait.

Shouldn’t you judge a group on its members as well? Nick Griffin of the BNP can talk publicly all he wants about not being racist, but his followers are always up for a bit of good old fashioned holocaust denying. If you ever get talking to one of them in a bar, you don’t have to count past twenty before you hear a phrase that should have been confined to the history books around the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. So if there really is this large a gulf between the leader and his members then it’s not a coherent party; it’s a decapitated body. And above all, it is a racist organisation.

I get a similar feeling from the EDL. I’m not accusing all their members of racism; I do believe some of them when they say their quarrel is simply with a certain strain of religion. However, I will explain why I won't be signing up tomorrow.

Once, my friend an I were scouting a pub's front garden for seats. We ended up sharing with a blonde middleaged woman who was sitting on her own smoking. I can't remember which side first struck up the conversation but within a minute she had left the table and was walking over to a Muslim family who were dropping their children off to the Quakers centre across the road; clearly for a class of some sort. She returned having spoken to them and proceeded to rant about how they were turning the building into a mosque. She told us she was a senior EDL member. We then had to listen to a bizarre list of conspiracy theories, including something about a sinister plan to stock only halal pork in every major supermarket. I can now report that a year later, the centre across the road remains Quaker, and a quick google search on ‘Halal Pork’ yields only ironic results. Not even a googlewhack for the affirmative I’m afraid.

I found it amusing until I got home and did some research into what their meetings actually look like. They look like street fights. They look like the post match antics of a Chelsea/Millwall game. Looking at the Muslim protesters who clearly thought they were fighting some sort of offshoot of the BNP, it looked like a race war. This wasn’t fulfilling what I’d hoped when I heard there was an organisation opposing extremist Islam. That promised me something like protection from street warfare. This was hooliganism, with a cause, but hooliganism nonetheless. It cannot be the right method.

Debating Muslims must be the appropriate method for this time. Ask them for help in outing the potential terrorists. Find out how their reformation is coming along. If terrorism threatens then we'll fight our corner with all the force needed. Just don’t massage protests in such a way as to guarantee conflict out of nothing. It is the idiot end of the scale of the anti-extremist movement. In the same way that BNP members do not respect the modernised manifesto they are obliged to sign up to; the peace tinged EDL slogan does not appear to mean much to the underlings.

You may agree with everything Tommy Robinson says. But his followers don't appear to be on panels asking Sheikhs what the punishment for apostasy is. Youtube suggests they are probably squaring up to policemen in Birmingham city centre. I think it's time to take a more intelligent stance on this terribly complicated issue, don't you? 

What you're thinking?

“He’s saying what we’re all thinking!”

You’ve all heard it, possibly from your own lips. Sometimes it is muttered amongst audience members of a show by the latest (or perhaps most archaic) risqué comedian. But it is most often heard within a crowd lapping up banal rhetoric, igniting the primal hostility that has existed within the species since year dot.

To my mind though, there is a conflict between how the comment is intended and how it must be perceived. In context, it is nearly the exact opposite of a compliment.  

It is meant as a salute to the speaker’s insightfulness, his wisdom at pointing out the common thought shared by the crowd. It also has a wider aim in attempting to unite members of the public and therefore bring some suppressed opinions out into the open. The phrase is a passive rallying call to the simpleminded out there who wish to have their simple minds ignored no more. Not only this, but they have now found a spokesperson to articulate their inner passions.

I will list an example just for clarity’s sake. It is a hypothetical one but I’m sure it will resonate with some of you:

“I, for one, find the sight of two men engaging in passionate kissing disgusting. I’m only saying what people are thinking.”

Make no mistake; they are saying what some people are thinking. I myself have been among the slightly offended retorting with, “Well it’s not what I was thinking”, but they do have an audience. Of course they have an audience. British society is built upon 2000 years of an intrinsically homophobic religion. Our global society is built upon tribal conflict that has always marginalised minorities. I’m sure only the hibernating among you would disagree that they have a massive audience. The problem is that the message is usually not worthy of even being debated, let alone admired intellectually.  

Now, to my point. The fact a man is saying what you are all thinking probably means he is not revolutionising modern philosophy, or forging a new path for Western democracy. He probably isn’t redefining our future, or quantifying the past.

When Jesus remarked, “He who is without sin cast the first stone”, people weren't already thinking it; they were stoning people.

Voltaire wasn't preaching to the converted when he expressed the most powerful demand for free speech ever uttered.

A great orator can redefine your world view in a few simple words. Their power can occasionally even change a hard set belief. The late Christopher Hitchens once said, “That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”. It gave a damning answer to the previously unanswerable question: “How can you prove there isn’t a God?”. That is what a talented thinker/speaker can do.   

It is premature and naive to hold someone up in high esteem simply because he is saying what you didn’t want to say yourself. If you harbour racist thoughts but have made them dormant out of your own judgement, then what right does an overpaid, underachieving politician have to change that? Or why pay to see a comedian who merely reels off insults that you were mentally aiming at a group of asylum seekers fifteen minutes earlier? Why waste your money?

It is tremendously easy to drum up the irrational, inner hate in the public. 1939 and many other four digit numbers are monolithic temples of proof as far as that is concerned. It takes exceptional people, however, to say what we should be thinking. Not in a dictatorial way, but in undeniable prose that slices like a cleaver through the stupid, erroneous and mundane.

We visit the cinema to enjoy films we can only aspire to make. We go to concerts and galleries to see artists we consider worthy of our total attention. We go to school to learn from teachers who know things we don’t. Why do we then manage to summon up the arrogance and ignorance to idolise charismatic demagogues who are simply telling you that they think in the same way as you. Why give them a round of applause? You could sit in front of the mirror and have the same experience. At least then you wouldn’t have to put up with a bloated, asinine and, ultimately, incredibly square individual yelling at you for his allotted time. Not to mention the saliva confetti that seems to be a permanent fixture of such events.

To be put it more succinctly: Don't be silly when choosing who you idolize. Make it Socrates, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, I’ll even give you David Beckham. Just don’t let yourself down by applauding a larger than life thug who has simply developed one talent that you haven’t: Public speaking.

Not rocket science.