Political Correctness and Freedom of Expression
A couple of recent incidents have highlighted for me the huge problem that political correctness (PC) is posing in our society. PC is plaguing our schools, offices and even soccer fields to a point where we are slowly being driven to a vocabulary of Orwellian-style double-speak and meaningless, circular phrases. An example is the term “undocumented workers” as a substitute for illegal aliens. Why is the worker undocumented one may ask? Did he lose his papers?
The most recent and absurd occasion of PC gone mad is the UN’s condemnation of Canada as being racist. Never mind ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the slaughtering of Buddhist monks in Thailand or religious persecution across the Middle East, instead, the object of their reprehension is our use of the term “visible minority”. The brilliant minds at the UN have condemned Canada’s blatantly racist slur, “visible minority”, as an explicit denigrating assault on the enslaved non-whites of this bigoted apartheid state. Using their enlightened logic, ethnic minorities should be indistinguishable and beyond categorization even for practical purposes. It isn’t hard to see how this pseudo-Marxist backwards thinking would make it even harder for us to protect the minorities who need protecting.
The other recent event that got my head throbbing with disbelief was the apparent outrage over the “racist” expulsion of a Muslim soccer player for wearing a hijab during a soccer game. We even received a stern letter of denunciation from Egypt, a model of universal tolerance and peace. Egyptian officials, who are experts in Canadian human rights issues, stated that this incident was proof of the "mounting signs of racism and intolerance in Canada". For an inexplicable reason, the fact that the referee who expelled the young soccer player was himself a Muslim does not find its way into the conversation of this international crisis. The referee was following the international rules of soccer, a truly universal game, as well as a convention of team sports called ‘uniform’. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with religion or ethnicity but rather with the safety of the girl. If she wanted to keep on playing, she simply had to remove the hijab from her head (I’m sure surgery wouldn’t be required) and put it back on after the game.
This impractical over-sensitivity to minorities or “vulnerable groups” for the sake of political correctness has been equally balanced with an assault on the majority. This is where the Orwellian double-speak takes place and where an assault on freedom of speech is transparent. Why is it so difficult to criticize questionable practices of minorities for the sake of reason? It is because it’s racist or prejudiced. The newly coined phrase “Islamophobia” is all the rage among advocates and users of PC. Saturday Night Live actually has a running joke about media outlets that are charged with creating “Islamophobia” through their portrayal of Muslims. The skits always end by suggesting that terrorism also might have something to do with it.
“Homophobia” is also a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the PC thought-police. This term is not only a moral judgment and condemnation, but it also suggests a mental disorder in those who object to certain sexual practices. Verbal weapons such as these are clearly aimed at curving speech and thought. They are dangerous as they dissuade individuals from constructive critical thinking by humiliation and condemnation. The very practices that were championed by questioning society are now setting limits to the questions that new generations are allowed to ask.
PC is dangerous and harmful. It is not conducive to liberty and suppresses the rights of the majority to the slightest sensibilities of the minority. Last Christmas, a judge decided to remove a Christmas tree from a court house in Ontario, not because it presented any danger, but rather because she saw it as a sign of exclusion. Even after appeals from Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities to allow the Christmas tree to stay for the duration of the holiday, the ludicrous ruling remained. This compelled the premier, Dalton McGuinty, to ask the question, "How does a menorah offend anyone? How does a Christmas tree offend anyone? How does a celebration of Eid offend anyone?” Simple, a Christmas tree offends judges and deluded people because it’s a sign of the majority and a Canadian tradition. The celebration of Eid will not offend people, but if someone were to offend a symbol of diversity, then you would hear the international outcry.
The most recent and absurd occasion of PC gone mad is the UN’s condemnation of Canada as being racist. Never mind ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the slaughtering of Buddhist monks in Thailand or religious persecution across the Middle East, instead, the object of their reprehension is our use of the term “visible minority”. The brilliant minds at the UN have condemned Canada’s blatantly racist slur, “visible minority”, as an explicit denigrating assault on the enslaved non-whites of this bigoted apartheid state. Using their enlightened logic, ethnic minorities should be indistinguishable and beyond categorization even for practical purposes. It isn’t hard to see how this pseudo-Marxist backwards thinking would make it even harder for us to protect the minorities who need protecting.
The other recent event that got my head throbbing with disbelief was the apparent outrage over the “racist” expulsion of a Muslim soccer player for wearing a hijab during a soccer game. We even received a stern letter of denunciation from Egypt, a model of universal tolerance and peace. Egyptian officials, who are experts in Canadian human rights issues, stated that this incident was proof of the "mounting signs of racism and intolerance in Canada". For an inexplicable reason, the fact that the referee who expelled the young soccer player was himself a Muslim does not find its way into the conversation of this international crisis. The referee was following the international rules of soccer, a truly universal game, as well as a convention of team sports called ‘uniform’. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with religion or ethnicity but rather with the safety of the girl. If she wanted to keep on playing, she simply had to remove the hijab from her head (I’m sure surgery wouldn’t be required) and put it back on after the game.
This impractical over-sensitivity to minorities or “vulnerable groups” for the sake of political correctness has been equally balanced with an assault on the majority. This is where the Orwellian double-speak takes place and where an assault on freedom of speech is transparent. Why is it so difficult to criticize questionable practices of minorities for the sake of reason? It is because it’s racist or prejudiced. The newly coined phrase “Islamophobia” is all the rage among advocates and users of PC. Saturday Night Live actually has a running joke about media outlets that are charged with creating “Islamophobia” through their portrayal of Muslims. The skits always end by suggesting that terrorism also might have something to do with it.
“Homophobia” is also a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the PC thought-police. This term is not only a moral judgment and condemnation, but it also suggests a mental disorder in those who object to certain sexual practices. Verbal weapons such as these are clearly aimed at curving speech and thought. They are dangerous as they dissuade individuals from constructive critical thinking by humiliation and condemnation. The very practices that were championed by questioning society are now setting limits to the questions that new generations are allowed to ask.
PC is dangerous and harmful. It is not conducive to liberty and suppresses the rights of the majority to the slightest sensibilities of the minority. Last Christmas, a judge decided to remove a Christmas tree from a court house in Ontario, not because it presented any danger, but rather because she saw it as a sign of exclusion. Even after appeals from Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities to allow the Christmas tree to stay for the duration of the holiday, the ludicrous ruling remained. This compelled the premier, Dalton McGuinty, to ask the question, "How does a menorah offend anyone? How does a Christmas tree offend anyone? How does a celebration of Eid offend anyone?” Simple, a Christmas tree offends judges and deluded people because it’s a sign of the majority and a Canadian tradition. The celebration of Eid will not offend people, but if someone were to offend a symbol of diversity, then you would hear the international outcry.
posted by Cincanadus at
3/10/2007 02:27:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home