Racism - A Growing Business

#1
I've just read an excellent article by Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent on the Dale Farm situation.

The following quote got me thinking.

the underlying principle of the entire rights industry: that there are certain "minorities" for whom it is appropriate to create exemptions from the generalised rule of law. Discrimination in their favour -- one that effectively discriminates against the majority -- is perfectly acceptable in this bizarre political culture, in which inequality is termed "equality".
So whenever you see the terms "quota", "gender-sensitive", "culturally-adequate", or "culturally-appropriate", hold firm! For you are now dealing with a new politically correct apartheid, which the UN rights commissions, Amnesty International, and our own insane "human rights" quangos heartily approve of.
The will of the majority is being ignored to pander to a minority. In a lot of cases the minority is perfectly happy to accept the benefits of this imbalance but are not often the instigators of it.

If you can get yourself out of the mire by using the race card, why wouldn't you? There are plenty of squaddies who pull the ID Card in similar circumstances. Is it the offender's fault for using a potential get out of jail card or Authority's for making it such an easy thing to do?

Is it really necessary to ban every form of racial stereotyped humour? After all humour is just that and as long as it isn't directed in such a way as to incite or to cause fear then I can't see any problem with it. Most people can tell the difference between a joke about a Scotsman or Yorkshireman being 'careful' and the persistent negative stereotyping of one race or another.

In my experience illogical and ill thought out 'Political Correctness' is more likely to cause friction than the mere presence of people with different coloured skin. Nearly all the more ridiculous PC pronunciations come from white lefties rather than any racial group.

You just can't have a law that is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an offence was committed or not. One man's banter is another man's abuse. The law should define the offence and make it abundantly clear where the lines are drawn, if you can't define the lines then you shouldn't have the law.

When setting objectives we always set out to make them SMART, that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable,Realistic and Time Framed. Apart from the Time I would say that Laws should apply the same criteria.

Isn't it time we redefined what constitutes racism and what constitutes equality?
 
#3
I've just read an excellent article by Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent on the Dale Farm situation.

The following quote got me thinking.



The will of the majority is being ignored to pander to a minority. In a lot of cases the minority is perfectly happy to accept the benefits of this imbalance but are not often the instigators of it.

If you can get yourself out of the mire by using the race card, why wouldn't you? There are plenty of squaddies who pull the ID Card in similar circumstances. Is it the offender's fault for using a potential get out of jail card or Authority's for making it such an easy thing to do?

Is it really necessary to ban every form of racial stereotyped humour? After all humour is just that and as long as it isn't directed in such a way as to incite or to cause fear then I can't see any problem with it. Most people can tell the difference between a joke about a Scotsman or Yorkshireman being 'careful' and the persistent negative stereotyping of one race or another.

In my experience illogical and ill thought out 'Political Correctness' is more likely to cause friction than the mere presence of people with different coloured skin. Nearly all the more ridiculous PC pronunciations come from white lefties rather than any racial group.

You just can't have a law that is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an offence was committed or not. One man's banter is another man's abuse. The law should define the offence and make it abundantly clear where the lines are drawn, if you can't define the lines then you shouldn't have the law.

When setting objectives we always set out to make them SMART, that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable,Realistic and Time Framed. Apart from the Time I would say that Laws should apply the same criteria.

Isn't it time we redefined what constitutes racism and what constitutes equality?
It has taken you long to realise this?
 
#6
Agree with the OP. Military E & D is just as easily picked apart using logic, and how upset do E & D advisors get when you point out the discrepencies. Very. (Apart from the ones which know its rubbish, and have done it for a career advancing tick in the box).
 
#7
You just can't have a law that is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an offence was committed or not. One man's banter is another man's abuse. The law should define the offence and make it abundantly clear where the lines are drawn, if you can't define the lines then you shouldn't have the law.
Can't argue with that. There is a whole traunche of bad law out there, profiting no one but the lawyers. The Government must keep its (Conservative) manifesto promise and repeal the lot. Start where ever you like, but the Human Rights Act is a big target.

B
 
#8
Can't argue with that. There is a whole traunche of bad law out there, profiting no one but the lawyers. The Government must keep its (Conservative) manifesto promise and repeal the lot. Start where ever you like, but the Human Rights Act is a big target.

B
Labour have long sought to try to dismiss debate on racial matters and brand any opinion that doesn't suit as evil. Hence we have such a lopsided view of what constitutes racism. If an English person wants to preserve the English culture they are sometimes branded racist or a Little Englander but the converse isn't true. Anyone who wants to preserve their own culture in England is applauded and helped, even encouraged.

Racism cannot be a one-sided affair. If you are going to outlaw racism then it must be applied equally to all races without exception. I have no objection to anybody retaining their own traditions but they should do so within the confines of our traditions and culture. We should be tolerant but not have to make way for their traditions and culture to supersede or even superimpose itself on ours.

By creating distinct minorities that are encouraged to maintain their own traditions and cultures, within a greater whole, then you create resentment and barriers to integration. Isolation prevents integration and prevents immigrants breaking out of their situation and succeeding in the mainstream, it certainly does them no favours.
 
#10
Labour have long sought to try to dismiss debate on racial matters and brand any opinion that doesn't suit as evil. Hence we have such a lopsided view of what constitutes racism. If an English person wants to preserve the English culture they are sometimes branded racist or a Little Englander but the converse isn't true. Anyone who wants to preserve their own culture in England is applauded and helped, even encouraged.

Racism cannot be a one-sided affair. If you are going to outlaw racism then it must be applied equally to all races without exception. I have no objection to anybody retaining their own traditions but they should do so within the confines of our traditions and culture. We should be tolerant but not have to make way for their traditions and culture to supersede or even superimpose itself on ours.

By creating distinct minorities that are encouraged to maintain their own traditions and cultures, within a greater whole, then you create resentment and barriers to integration. Isolation prevents integration and prevents immigrants breaking out of their situation and succeeding in the mainstream, it certainly does them no favours.
Can I add to that?

Labour's reforms also put paid to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

I can think of a case in London a few years back when two skinheads kicked a gay guy to death in a park. This was seen as homophobic in nature, a so-called 'hate crime', and so there was a greater sentencing tariff applied.

I don't doubt that the two deserved to be imprisoned for what they did, and I fully agree that what happened to the poor guy who was killed was a tragedy and fundamentally wrong.

However, I have a very uncomfortable feeling about the fact his death was somehow deemed deserving of a greater level of punishment than if this hadn't somehow been a 'hate crime'; if he'd been kicked to death just because there'd been an altercation, the two perpetrators could potentially have received lighter sentences.

Okay, I've used a homophobic example here but the same still applies. There's an insidious, ideological element to this. And, once again, to highlight its unfairness is to be branded 'racist' or somehow bigoted.
 
#11
Labour have long sought to try to dismiss debate on racial matters and brand any opinion that doesn't suit as evil. Hence we have such a lopsided view of what constitutes racism. If an English person wants to preserve the English culture they are sometimes branded racist or a Little Englander but the converse isn't true. Anyone who wants to preserve their own culture in England is applauded and helped, even encouraged.

Racism cannot be a one-sided affair. If you are going to outlaw racism then it must be applied equally to all races without exception. I have no objection to anybody retaining their own traditions but they should do so within the confines of our traditions and culture. We should be tolerant but not have to make way for their traditions and culture to supersede or even superimpose itself on ours.

By creating distinct minorities that are encouraged to maintain their own traditions and cultures, within a greater whole, then you create resentment and barriers to integration. Isolation prevents integration and prevents immigrants breaking out of their situation and succeeding in the mainstream, it certainly does them no favours.
You are confusing race, culture and immigration as a single subject. They are related but not all the same thing.

Racism is an obviously bad thing which needed to be dealt with, just not in the way Labour did it. They have made laws that encourage rather than tackle the problem.

Multiculturalism was a shit idea. Of course people should be free to express their cultural heritage but not if it breaks our laws.

Immigrants shouldn't really be doing crap low paid work. A sensible immigration policy would only have skilled people coming here.

For over a decade now the official response to anyone raising concerns has been to label them as racists and so stifle debate. A sensible debate is long overdue IMO. Just because it will be difficult to do (as it will attract genuine racists) does not mean it should not be done.
 
#12
Immigrants shouldn't really be doing crap low paid work. A sensible immigration policy would only have skilled people coming here.
Can't disagree with anything you've just said. But New Labour had an unstated policy of changing the racial mix of the UK AND creating for itself a client voter block through mass inward migration.
 
#13
You are confusing race, culture and immigration as a single subject. They are related but not all the same thing.

Racism is an obviously bad thing which needed to be dealt with, just not in the way Labour did it. They have made laws that encourage rather than tackle the problem.

Multiculturalism was a shit idea. Of course people should be free to express their cultural heritage but not if it breaks our laws.

Immigrants shouldn't really be doing crap low paid work. A sensible immigration policy would only have skilled people coming here.

They shouldn't have to - the safety net of Social Welfare payments should be that - a Safety Net. Not a lifestyle choice.

For over a decade now the official response to anyone raising concerns has been to label them as racists and so stifle debate. A sensible debate is long overdue IMO. Just because it will be difficult to do (as it will attract genuine racists) does not mean it should not be done.
Agreed with my addition. BUT

MIT - you seem to be changing your tune slightly as at one stage you argued for Sharia Law being allowed - granted with the caveat "In some circumstances"

So where do you draw the line?
 
#14
Can I add to that?

Labour's reforms also put paid to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

I can think of a case in London a few years back when two skinheads kicked a gay guy to death in a park. This was seen as homophobic in nature, a so-called 'hate crime', and so there was a greater sentencing tariff applied.

I don't doubt that the two deserved to be imprisoned for what they did, and I fully agree that what happened to the poor guy who was killed was a tragedy and fundamentally wrong.

However, I have a very uncomfortable feeling about the fact his death was somehow deemed deserving of a greater level of punishment than if this hadn't somehow been a 'hate crime'; if he'd been kicked to death just because there'd been an altercation, the two perpetrators could potentially have received lighter sentences.

Okay, I've used a homophobic example here but the same still applies. There's an insidious, ideological element to this. And, once again, to highlight its unfairness is to be branded 'racist' or somehow bigoted.
You've picked a very good example. The act itself was senseless and, it would appear, motivated my homophobia but what makes that motivation worse than a motiveless attack? If you kick someone to death because he looked at you wrong or because he supported the wrong football team or even because he was the tenth person who happened along why is that considered better than being motivated by a tangible difference?

If incitement to commit an offense is a crime then why does it have to have a separate offence involving race? Why is mindless violence considered preferable to violence motivated by a perceived difference? Surely both should be equally as severely dealt with?
 
#15
Can't disagree with anything you've just said. But New Labour had an unstated policy of changing the racial mix of the UK AND creating for itself a client voter block through mass inward migration.
Yes I know, it was a shit policy designed for party benefit against the overall welfare of the UK. I think that the knee-jerk calling people racists was originally a designed response. Doing that stopped them having to engage in debate. MIT seems to have just realised this or is on the verge of doing so.
 
#16
Much of the 'PC' thing is simply an attempt to codify good manners - which great swathes of the population seem to lack completely.

Some people with a big nose/missing leg/ won't mind it being used as a point of banter, but others will find it destroys their self confidence and amounts to abuse.

A lot of people are too thick to tell the difference, or too ignorant to care, so the social engineers have had a go at fixing the problem by regulating human inter-action.

It has turned out to be a pain in the arrse and a bit of a disaster, but you can see where it comes from.

It's a bit like that mad expression 'If you leave an ammo pouch open today it'll be a submarine hatch tomorrow' but casual abuse at one level really does lead to people being kicked to death on another level.

And I agree that the 'hate' factor serves to aggravate whatever offence is being committed and
the sentence should reflect that.
 
#17
Agreed with my addition. BUT

MIT - you seem to be changing your tune slightly as at one stage you argued for Sharia Law being allowed - granted with the caveat "In some circumstances"

So where do you draw the line?
No, I didn't argue for it being allowed but I did point out that it is perhaps inevitable that some aspects of it might become incorporated into our laws or that it might be seen in a similar way to other religious laws already permitted. By some aspects I meant those aspects that most closely mirror our own laws. If corporal pinishment was ever brought back would that not be an aspect of Sharia Law? I am against Sharia Law in it's entirety becoming incorporated into British Law and always will be.

If you favour a minority then you run the risk of upsetting the majority who see the minority gaining at their expense.

I'm totally all against the petty PC bureaucracy that seems to pervade our lives and restrict customs and practices that have gone on here for centuries for fear of some possible offence.

I don't believe in judging someone by their colour or religion but how they are as a person. I will always try to accommodate a neighbour and respect their beliefs and ways but that doesn't mean that I am willing to have them inflict their ways on me.

People who choose to come to this country also have the right to choose to leave if the way we live does not appeal to them. I don't expect people to become more English than the English but I do expect an attempt to assimilate themselves into mainstream life. Where you have a large number of immigrants in a relatively small area (usually poor) then integration will take time and then toleration is needed.
 
#18
The problem with political correctness is that it is now firmly entrenched, especially within the public sector and is not going to go away anytime soon as a lot of people have, and continue to make a living out of it, all part of new liebours job creation and political dogma indoctrination scheme.

These people have invented a whole lexicon full of euphemisms in order to justify treating certain groups in society differently and giving advantageous treatment. My personal favourite is "positive action".
They have even brought in new laws in order to stifle debate, indeed, it is even possible now to be offended on someone elses behalf and proceed to take action on this basis, even thought the potential plaintiff may not wish to do so.

Even though the coalition did away with many of the equality and diversity targets when they came to power, many sections of the public sector have simply ignored this and carried on as before, although now we have "aspirational targets" instead of actual ones. Another buzz phrase to add to the ever growing collection.
In the organisation that i work for, if you wish to apply for promotion. The first thing you have to demonstrate on the application form is a "commitment to equlity and diversity".
So for all Shamerons party,s big talk of doing away with quango,s and the pernicious PC culture, don,t hold your breath.
 
#19
Much of the 'PC' thing is simply an attempt to codify good manners - which great swathes of the population seem to lack completely...
I disagree. The PC shit seems to about making offending people an offense. We can have PC or free speech, they are mutually exclusive.

IMO, incitement to violence/hatred is already a crime. A right to never being offended is a suppression of freedom.
 
#20
I disagree. The PC shit seems to about making offending people an offense. We can have PC or free speech, they are mutually exclusive.

IMO, incitement to violence/hatred is already a crime. A right to never being offended is a suppression of freedom.
I agree, there was a story in the wail the other day {yes i know it,s the wail} where two PCSO,s told a shop keeper to remove a mannequin from outside the shop doorway which they had jokingly dressed as Gaddafi as it was "inappropriate" What does that mean FFS? Innapropriate because of what?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top