FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Freedom, free speech and the PC brigade
With the best will in the world it is impossible to never offend
or confuse anyone. The very nature of language and the wide variety of sense of
humour that exists within the human race means that you could mean one thing and
the recipient could read or hear something
different.
Nowhere is it more obvious than in the written word, or text or
even e mail. Even when you insert all the pleasantries such as please and thank
you, you can still come across as aggressive or unhappy due to the standpoint
of the receiver. Sarcasm does not transpose well to text and many jokes are
misread. “That’s a great Idea!!” can look excited whereas if it follows the
question “should I put my head into the food mixer?” then you either sound
sarcastic, or sound as if you hate the person and want them to have an
accident.
Texting confines the writer to an abbreviated language, and it is
difficult enough to communicate with the thousands of words we have already!
Hence why so many confused replies and disagreements happen.
This leads me on to Political correctness and freedom of speech.
Real freedom gives you the ability to express yourself and be who and what you
want without the restrictions afforded by others. Political correctness is a
restriction on speech and is therefore an infringement on the rights of
citizen’s freedom of expression. I can see why a disabled person would not like
to be called a derogatory name that mocks them, but they are disabled and should
not feel bad because people call them this. At the end of the day, the person
who hears the comment will only be offended if they hear it from the perspective
of someone who has a problem with it. If someone called me a Pink Person, I
would not be offended, so why is the term Black so bad when associated with
sheep, black boards or anything else that has been banned in the UK schools
system.
(NB: That’s right folks, in the “free country” of the UK we can
no longer sing “baa baa black sheep” or refer to a chalk board as a “black
board” as someone may find it offensive! Crazy!! However the person who raised
the blackboard issue owned shares in a company that created the computerised
white boards that are now used in all the schools in the UK!! (I think I’ll
campaign against white boards!!!!))
The real use of political correctness is not to protect people,
some people are protected by it however, this is a ‘side dish’ compared to the
real reason. Political correctness is there to stifle debate and prevent the
general public from being able to question those in authority. If you use
complicated terms to a badly educated person then they will be confused and look
foolish and so will not win the debate. Many people will use words to describe
people which are looked on as politically incorrect and therefore offensive,
this again stifles the debate as many who wish to have their say will shy away
from debate in fear of being branded racist, homophobic, anti-Semite or sexist.
For example, (and I am not for one moment saying the following
statement is true)… If I was to say….
“Jewish bankers have taken over the financial system and have
used the word anti-Semite to defend themselves against anyone who challenges
them or points this out. They will liken anyone who believes in a free and open
debate on this to Hitler, Ironically Hitler was not a fan of debate being as he
was a dictator!”
Then I would be branded anti-Semite, despite the fact that I am
entitled to my opinion, there is nothing offensive, and there is significant
evidence that many of the people involved in world banking are of Jewish
descent. Because I would not be allowed to say that sentence, there would never
be an open and honest debate about it and so it could never be
disproved!
Another sentence that is not allowed in debate may be…..(Again I
am not saying the sentence is my
opinion)…..
“Homosexuality is wrong due to the medical and emotional issues
it causes, also Gay marriage in a Christian church is wrong as it is pointed out
in the bible that it is a “sin” and to force the believers of any faith to
accept a practice that is against their faith is abusive and is against their
human rights, it would never happen in an Islamic
Mosque”
I couldn’t say that either, despite the substantial evidence that
gay relationships between men can be physically dangerous, (viruses, bacterial
infections, anal tearing, colon problems, incontinence), and emotionally it
damages children to be subjected to sexual behaviour at a young age (as
described by the Children’s Act in the UK) thus having openly gay comedians on
the TV at primetime talking about their sexual practices is OK, Having 5 year
olds being taught about anal sex is OK however telling kids that you do not
believe it is right is wrong….. God bless the UK school and legal system!!!! As
for the religious thing… I do not believe intrinsically in the God as described
in the bible, as I believe it was written for simple people 1500 years ago or
so, but surely in this age of “tolerance” the rights of Christians to practice
their religion without homosexuals being involved should be respected. However
it is not as that is intolerant by the Christians despite it being intolerant of
the homosexual campaigners to force their way in via the back door……so to speak
and because I am not allowed to question any of that, the issues as pointed out
would never be debated and resolved.
I Can guarantee that I will get death threats and nasty e mails
from gays, Jews and lesbians, but that is because they will not have read the
whole article in the spirit it is meant and will deliberately take the examples
out of context so that they can use the practice of political correctness to win
their argument without having to actually make an intelligent case for their
cause. And that is my point entirely, This article has been about the pitfalls
of restricted language and Ironically people will tell me I shouldn’t have said
it!
Good Journey and may all of you walk gently upon the eart