Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[Mrs Smoker]

Wasn't it also banned in the UK at some point?

Not sure about UK, but Ireland.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Wasn't it also banned in the UK at some point?

Was banned in Ireland for a bit but not the UK as far as I’m aware. I’m sure some people wanted it banned.

 

[Wibble]

Was meant for this post. I am guessing this recent outrage at the Presidents Club thingy is crazy for you; they have a right to pick and choose, correct?

The venue have the right to choose within the law. We have the right to object to the men obly guest/young attractive women only formst where rich men appear to believe they have the right to sexually the waiting on staff. No idea what this has to do with Unis choosing to stop people they don't want to validate from speaking at their venue.

 

[sullydnl]

Wasn't it also banned in the UK at some point?

As far as I'm aware some local authorities banned it while others just went with the X rating. I might be wrong though.

 

[berbatrick]

That's an interesting point actually - there has been a parade of Bush-era neocons and Obama-era nat sec people (all advocates of various wars, all taking about "global security challenges") giving talks at my univ without a hint of protest.
Even more stunningly, there was also known idiot Sean Spicer and famous pizza pedo Podesta, who came and left without incident. White text.

@Ubik
same question was posed here.

There’s another question if you tend toward the suppression approach, which once you decide that some speakers aren’t welcome, how do you keep yourself from narrowing and narrowing the field until you’re literally only allowing people who unanimously agree with one another. We can all agree when it’s obvious, when they are just open in their bigotry, and we don’t want Milo Yiannopoulos coming to our campus and calling women the c-word. But what about George W. Bush? Again, the Iraq War was a far worse human atrocity than anything Milo Yiannopoulos has ever produced. Should the architects of that war be allowed? Should all those politicians who voted for it be allowed?

The answers to these questions about when and whether you ought to restrict access are not necessarily obvious. But once we decide that our principle is excluding people who reach a certain level of moral heinousness, we need a clear sense of what that level is, who falls on the one side of the line and who falls on the other. And part of why I err on the side of openness is that I don’t know how I would decide who is terrible enough to exclude, because there are just so many terrible people. There is always a risk, when we take on the role of the censor, of creating an environment that is no longer vibrant and full of diverse thought.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/text-of-university-of-connecticut-speech

 

[redman5]

I'd just like to point out that legally speaking, discrimination based on religion is often defined as racism. In Norway specifically, it falls under Straffeloven (penal code, for those who don't speak Viking), paragraf 135a, popularly referred to as Rasismeparagrafen (this one should be fairly obvious). It's not an anti-racism law, but rather an anti-discrimination and anti-hate-speech law. Law specifically states that hate-speech, discrimination or showing contempt based on or directed at someone based on their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or lifestance, sexuality or disability are crimes. So if you're treating someone worse because they're Muslim, you risk running foul of this law, same as if you were doing it because of their skin colour.

I agree that they are different, but I also agree with the law's view that neither are ok.

A few years back, just after the Stockholm bombings, the British police arrested the wife of the bomber (she too had strong links to Islamic terrorism). This prompted a march by the Muslim community in Luton protesting against her arrest simply because she was a Muslim woman. The fact that she could have been complicit in the terrorist attack was seemingly irrelevant to them. Add that to the fact that there were chants of "British police go to hell" shouted at the march, plus the young woman who covered the events - Stacey Dooley - was verbally abused by some of the marchers for the way she was dressed, & you can understand why a lot of people feel the way they do about certain communities, & religions, being able to get away with some things that others would be prosecuted, &, vilified for. For example, if a group like the EDL countered that march & chanted "Islamic terrorists go to hell", the authorities, the left-wing media, & social media would explode with the horror of it all. So how would Norway have dealt with a similar situation ?

 

[Halftrack]

A few years back, just after the Stockholm bombings, the British police arrested the wife of the bomber (she too had strong links to Islamic terrorism). This prompted a march by the Muslim community in Luton protesting against her arrest simply because she was a Muslim woman. The fact that she could have been complicit in the terrorist attack was seemingly irrelevant to them. Add that to the fact that there were chants of "British police go to hell" shouted at the march, plus the young woman who covered the events - Stacey Dooley - was verbally abused by some of the marchers for the way she was dressed, & you can understand why a lot of people feel the way they do about certain communities, & religions, being able to get away with some things that others would be prosecuted, &, vilified for. For example, if a group like the EDL countered that march & chanted "Islamic terrorists go to hell", the authorities, the left-wing media, & social media would explode with the horror of it all. So how would Norway have dealt with a similar situation ?

Truth be told, I have no idea, as I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer. If some Muslim's wanted to protest the lawful arrest of a Muslim person, then they are free to do so. If someone staged a counter-protest, then they'd be free to do so as well.

Other than that, there's not enough information for me to really say much. How many Muslims were there? What kind of Muslims were they? Moderate, secular, extremist? Why should they be vilified for it? Who would have been vilified for doing the same? Do you think anyone would be prosecuted for chanting "police go to hell" during a protest? And why mention some hypothetical counter-protest by the EDL?

And I fail to see the relevance to my post. @Grylte talked about the differences between race and religion, and I got the distinct impression that he, to some extent at least, thinks that while treating someone differently because of their skin colour is wrong, doing so because of their religion is fair. Since we're both Norwegian, I pointed out to him that Norwegian law does not make that distinction.

 

[Grylte]

And I fail to see the relevance to my post. @Grylte talked about the differences between race and religion, and I got the distinct impression that he, to some extent at least, thinks that while treating someone differently because of their skin colour is wrong, doing so because of their religion is fair. Since we're both Norwegian, I pointed out to him that Norwegian law does not make that distinction.

My original question was why some people accuse you for being a racist, when you say something negative against a religion. - And used islam as an example.
I never said anything about treating, or discriminating anyone for anything. It's just that it seems that if you say anything negative about a religion, which i as an atheist often do, all of a sudden, you're a racist.
So my point was that it's not the same.

 

[Grylte]

I mean... I wouldn't be called a racist for saying anything negative against christianity, would it?
Because i'm from a christian country.

 

[Jippy]

I mean... I wouldn't be called a racist for saying anything negative against christianity, would it?
Because i'm from a christian country.

You might be called a bigot though.

 

[Grylte]

You might be called a bigot though.

Which i don't care about, since it's not relevant to my question.

 

[Jippy]

Which i don't care about, since it's not relevant to my question.

That's a moot point though. You don't have to be racist to be a discriminating bigot, which is what Norwegian law is saying.

 

[Grylte]

That's a moot point though. You don't have to be racist to be a discriminating bigot, which is what Norwegian law is saying.

I am not discriminating anyone, you're ignoring what i asked.
I never discriminated anyone, and i wasn't talking about myself in person either, it was a general question.
So either reply to what i originally asked, or just find some other thread to troll.

 

[Jippy]

I am not discriminating anyone, you're ignoring what i asked.
I never discriminated anyone, and i wasn't talking about myself in person either, it was a general question.
So either reply to what i originally asked, or just find some other thread to troll.

I dunno, but Christians aren't a race, so no you wouldn't be called racist for saying stuff about them. Being from a Christian country might not be the best defence though.

 

[Grylte]

I dunno, but Christians aren't a race, so no you wouldn't be called racist for saying stuff about them. Being from a Christian country might not be the best defence though.

This was my original question.

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

So i never spoke about me discriminating anyone. I don't.

 

[Halftrack]

My original question was why some people accuse you for being a racist, when you say something negative against a religion. - And used islam as an example.
I never said anything about treating, or discriminating anyone for anything. It's just that it seems that if you say anything negative about a religion, which i as an atheist often do, all of a sudden, you're a racist.
So my point was that it's not the same.

As I said, legal definitions will sometimes include religion under the racism umbrella. A lot of anti-racism organisations does as well. Which is part of the reason for why some might see anti-religious sentiment as racism. Another reason is that a lot of outright racist groups while hide behind the "just criticising the religion is all"-excuse.

 

[Denis79]

As I said, legal definitions will sometimes include religion under the racism umbrella. A lot of anti-racism organisations does as well. Which is part of the reason for why some might see anti-religious sentiment as racism. Another reason is that a lot of outright racist groups while hide behind the "just criticising the religion is all"-excuse.

Several political parties and people hide behind that claiming they are not racist but nationalists. It's just as bad as anti-semetism, or the racial superiority thinking.

If I would go and say that this or that country's culture and traditions are stupid, ignorant or whatever, I'm indirectly insinuating that it's people are also the same and intentionally so. Same goes for people attacking a religion and generalizing it's practitioners. The definition might not be racism but it's the same kind of hate and superiority line of thought.

But because the extreme right parties have got a foothold in politics all around Europe and the world they spew the same hate but packaged in more fancy words, making it more acceptable, which it never should be.

 

[2 man midfield]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5444978/left-wing-activists-storm-churchill-diner/

Anyone see this? Hippies stormed a Churchill themed cafe apparently, labelling him a racist and accusing the cafe of celebrating colonialism.

 

[Eboue]

They're not wrong.

 

[berbatrick]

THey're 100% right about him being a racist asshole

Afghanistan:
While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes:

“We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” – Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it.

Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”.
...
Greece:
The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army under Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti”, these were the very people who ran the Nazis out.

In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”.
...
India:
“I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. – Churchill wishing partition on India

Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to three million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say.
Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East – where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”.

In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”
...

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” – Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India

Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by ‘Bomber Harris’:

“The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. – Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris

...
he went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.

...

Kenya:
150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.

In 1954 in a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching:

“This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe”

The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue.

...
Palestine:
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.”

He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine. He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung."
...
He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

 

[van der star]

Having a Churchill themed cafe is almost akin to having a Hitler themed cafe, not a very bright idea. Nobody in their right minds should be celebrating a shitstain of a person like Churchill.

 

[entropy]

Having a Churchill themed cafe is almost akin to having a Hitler themed cafe, not a very bright idea. Nobody in their right minds should be celebrating a shitstain of a person like Churchill.

That is a bit harsh. If it wasn't for him, Europe would have been a completely different story today.

 

[matherto]

That is a bit harsh. If it wasn't for him, Europe would have been a completely different story today.

If Hitler wasn't seen as such a comic book supervillain we might get away with Churchill not being celebrated anywhere near as much as he is.

 

[caid]

That is a bit harsh. If it wasn't for him, Europe would have been a completely different story today.

It was young british men, dieing in their thousands that saved europe.
Not a fat racist who could make a good speech.

 

[Synco]

That is a bit harsh. If it wasn't for him, Europe would have been a completely different story today.

It probably differs according to the perspective from which one looks at it. The quotes from above are shocking.

There'll always be moral contradictions, some insurmountable, when it comes to the powers that beat Nazi Germany, which was indeed a blessing for mankind. Stalin comes to mind easily. (Certainly wouldn't name a café after him.)

 

[Sweet Square]

Richard Seymour puts it well.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism

 

[redman5]

So Britain was wrong then to appoint Churchill as the man to take on the Nazi's ?

 

[redman5]

Truth be told, I have no idea, as I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer. If some Muslim's wanted to protest the lawful arrest of a Muslim person, then they are free to do so. If someone staged a counter-protest, then they'd be free to do so as well.

Other than that, there's not enough information for me to really say much. How many Muslims were there? What kind of Muslims were they? Moderate, secular, extremist? Why should they be vilified for it? Who would have been vilified for doing the same? Do you think anyone would be prosecuted for chanting "police go to hell" during a protest? And why mention some hypothetical counter-protest by the EDL?

And I fail to see the relevance to my post. @Grylte talked about the differences between race and religion, and I got the distinct impression that he, to some extent at least, thinks that while treating someone differently because of their skin colour is wrong, doing so because of their religion is fair. Since we're both Norwegian, I pointed out to him that Norwegian law does not make that distinction.

This is the clip relating to my point. I should add that it's only a small part of a BBC documentary that covers all aspects of the racial tensions that exist in Luton, a town that has a much higher percentage of Muslims than most parts of the UK. The young woman (Stacey Dooley) tries her best to address the issues faced on both sides, but if you watch the full video - which is available on youtube - her naive conclusion is that things could be worked out if all parties simply sat down & worked out their differences. The reason I brought this up is to show that people like @Grylte have a strong point when they say that some people's religious beliefs quite often get them a lot more leeway than others who don't share their beliefs. The fact that you're not a lawyer or a police officer is irrelevant because I asked you a hypothetical question based on your country's laws. You obviously know a lot about Norwegian law to be able to form an opinion. That's all I asked for. Ms Dooley, at one point, is clearly upset & offended at some of the things that are said to her. So where would 'hate speech' come into that situation if this were to happen in Norway ?

 

[JustAFan]

If Hitler wasn't seen as such a comic book supervillain we might get away with Churchill not being celebrated anywhere near as much as he is.

Used the same line with someone here s few weeks ago who was trying to defend Stalin. Yeah without Hitler kicking things off in Europe Old Winston might never have been PM, so he'd be a minor figure in history.

 

[JustAFan]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5444978/left-wing-activists-storm-churchill-diner/

Anyone see this? Hippies stormed a Churchill themed cafe apparently, labelling him a racist and accusing the cafe of celebrating colonialism.

I love their how they all have their little scripts in hand and their smug looks.

 

[2 man midfield]

Having a Churchill themed cafe is almost akin to having a Hitler themed cafe, not a very bright idea. Nobody in their right minds should be celebrating a shitstain of a person like Churchill.

I think that's a little harsh. Judging people from the past by today's standards isn't really fair. I'm not saying what he said was fine, but suddenly everything good he did doesn't count? If people want to take pride in Britain then I think they can do so without celebrating all the bad stuff that went with it.

 

[711]

I think that's a little harsh. Judging people from the past by today's standards isn't really fair. I'm not saying what he said was fine, but suddenly everything good he did doesn't count? If people want to take pride in Britain then I think they can do so without celebrating all the bad stuff that went with it.

True. it would make one a pretty shit historian as well.

 

[van der star]

I think that's a little harsh. Judging people from the past by today's standards isn't really fair. I'm not saying what he said was fine, but suddenly everything good he did doesn't count? If people want to take pride in Britain then I think they can do so without celebrating all the bad stuff that went with it.

I'm not judging him from today's standards. Anyone who has caused mass genocide in any era is equally culpable, it's just that his acts of mass murder are more personal and relatively fresher in our collective memories, and so they're brought up in conversation more often, than say, Genghis Khan. I won't even get started on his bigoted/racist viewpoint. I never said anything about how he might have been seen as a positive light from your POV, all I'm saying is that nobody as cruel and vile as Churchill deserves to be celebrated. You can acknowledge him, his actions, but celebrations should be reserved for those who weren't such cnuts to so many other people. Sure, some good came from his existence, but the grief he caused far outweighs any good he might have done.

 

[2 man midfield]

I'm not judging him from today's standards. Anyone who has caused mass genocide in any era is equally culpable, it's just that his acts of mass murder are more personal and relatively fresher in our collective memories, and so they're brought up in conversation more often, than say, Genghis Khan. I won't even get started on his bigoted/racist viewpoint. I never said anything about how he might have been seen as a positive light from your POV, all I'm saying is that nobody as cruel and vile as Churchill deserves to be celebrated. You can acknowledge him, his actions, but celebrations should be reserved for those who weren't such cnuts to so many other people. Sure, some good came from his existence, but the grief he caused far outweighs any good he might have done.

The average person isn't looking at his life prior to serving as PM really. They're purely celebrating his leadership and how he stood up to Hitler. He's an iconic figure of British history, I don't see a lot wrong with celebrating what he did between 1940 and 1945. It doesn't mean you're on board with everything the man ever did and everything the man ever said.

 

[van der star]

The average person isn't looking at his life prior to serving as PM really. They're purely celebrating his leadership and how he stood up to Hitler. He's an iconic figure of British history, I don't see a lot wrong with celebrating what he did between 1940 and 1945. It doesn't mean you're on board with everything the man ever did and everything the man ever said.

And I reckon therein lies the difference in the POV of a Brit and almost anyone else whose people were affected by him. We were on opposite ends of his actions so it's natural to have contrary opinions.

 

[2cents]

Stalin is regarded as a bit of a hero in Georgia, there's a nice museum dedicated to him in his hometown Gori where you can buy bottles of his preferred Georgian wine with his picture on them (it's quite good). Every home I stayed in there had his picture on the mantelpiece beside Jesus.

 

[redman5]

I love their how they all have their little scripts in hand and their smug looks.

Yeah, it's good to know the UK will be in such safe hands when the Russians come marching down their street.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...reat-since-cold-war-says-head-of-british-army

 

[2 man midfield]

And I reckon therein lies the difference in the POV of a Brit and almost anyone else whose people were affected by him. We were on opposite ends of his actions so it's natural to have contrary opinions.

This is true. Aren't you Indian? It's only natural we're going to have different perspectives. Over here he's still regularly trotted out as incredibly influential. Even classed as the greatest Briton ever by many.

 

[villain]

feck Churchill, in my most politically correct tone.

 

[SteveJ]

Unsurprisingly, kids in Britain have only been taught about Churchill's WWII activities - this is why the nation regards him as a hero. A bit of truth wouldn't go amiss...