Monday, January 24, 2011

P.P.S

Is publishing this shit even legal?
 
...this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education....abuse of childhood.... all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour....just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda...anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality....must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life...seemingly all-­powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it... risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites....

Don't click on this link. It will make you feel dirty.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

P.S

The reason that it's unfair to harp on about Lord Rothermere's relationship with the Furher is that the present day paper's attitude to minorities -- Moslems, gypsies, gays etc -- is so entirely different from that of "Adolf the geat" to the Jews.
 
Unfunny cartoon by Mac

(Note particularly the Swastika.)



Okay, experiment in blogging about politics didn't work out. Back to looking for the Oedipus complex in Winnie the Pooh, I think.  

Monday, January 17, 2011

Spent literally seconds trying to think of a witty reaction to this locally themed piece from The Paper That Supported Hitler. But since this blog is already blocked in my place of work (for "profanity") I decided to go with my first instinct:

You utter shit. 

Unbelievable. Literally unbelievable.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Public Service Announcement

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

The governor answered and said unto them, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?"

They said, "Barabbas".

Pilate saith unto them, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"

They all say unto him, "Let him be crucified."

And the governor said, "Why, what evil hath he done?"

But they cried out the more, saying, "Let him be crucified."

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."

Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."

Matthew 27 15-25

When St Matthew says that "all the people" cired out "Let (Jesus) blood be on us and on our children" he presumably means "all the people who were gathered outside Pilate's residence" -- "the multitude" who the Priests have persuaded to vote for Barabas and against Jesus. 

He doesn't, so far as I can see mean "all the people in the middle- east" or "all the people in the whole wide world."

If we read this dispassionately, we would infer that Matthew thought that the responsibility for Jesus death lay with the mob who actually called for his death, not with the magistrate who sentenced him to death or the soldiers who executed him. We would take him to be saying that the consequences of this guilt would fall either on them (the people who actually called for Jesus to be killed) or on the next generation (their children).

We would also note that in the preceeding chapter, Jesus warned of an earth-shaking apocalypse which would occur within the lifetimes of those who had actually heard him preach. We would conclude  that Matthew thought that Jesus thought that something very terrible was going to happen in Jerusalem within thirty or forty years of the death of Jesus. Say, around AD 70 or so.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Homosexual Frogs / Little Baby Jesus

   Then up spoke baby Jesus,
from in Mary's womb:
"Bow down thou tallest cherry tree,
that my mother might have some!"


Every year Rowan Williams spends lots of money that he hasn't got putting up posters to persuade people to go to Church at Christmas. Quite what the point of this is, I couldn't say. Christmas is the one time of year when people would go to church regardless of whether or not there'd been posters telling them to. Christmas is the one time of year when churches lay on extra services, when the cathedrals and the more picturesque parish churches have to turn people away at the door.

These adverts are universally embarrassing. There was Jesus drawn in the style of Che Guevara, and the Angels running a call center, and Mary having a bad hair day. I really, really want to punch the person who came up with the "Christmas Begins With Christ" slogan. And Thursday begins with Thor and July begins with Julius bloody Caesar.

I assume someone already thought of "Church is for life, not just for Christmas."

This year, they've got one of those ultra-sound pictures of a human foetus that you get in ante-natal clinics, with a halo over its head, and the slogan "He's on His way."

I can see how the focus group came up with that one. It's even quite clever, in a "not particularly clever" sort of way. Advent is the time when Christians look forward to the birth of Jesus, yes? So, what does the focus group associate with "looking forward" to the birth of a baby? Nowadays most familys' first sight of their ickle bubbie is one of those grainy ultrasound pictures. People even put them in family albums, before the picture of the wrinkly thing a few minutes after it has been born. Rather charmingly, it means that the question "What are you hoping for?" is largely redundant. (I'm told that in the olden days baby's first clothes  had to be yellow or green, because until it popped out you didn't know if it was going to be a blue one or pink one.)

So the poster is saying "If Jesus were born in England today, Mary would have had a free ultrasound scan, so we should all be jolly glad that we live in a country where poor ladies with donkeys get that kind of thing on the National Health, and not America, where if you get pregnant and you're poor, Barak Obama kills you with a panel." [Check this: Ed] It's like one of those modern nativity plays which says that if Jesus were born today, he'd be born in a garage, not a stable; he'd be laid in a shoe box, not a manger; he'd be visited by college lecturers, not kings, and he'd be a Muslim, not a Christian.


 Well, no. I think it's probably saying something more like: "Ultrasound pictures the kind of thing we modern people associate with waiting for babies. But Jesus is a special, holy baby. And painters used to use halos to show when someone was special and holy. So a modern ultrasound image of an unborn baby with an old fashioned halo over its head is a clever ideogram for waiting for the arrival of a very special baby."

However, this image has proven terribly offensive to the kinds of people who get terribly offended by images of this kind.

Some people say that Christians spend a lot of time deliberately getting offended by things which are quite harmless, largely because they do. (Wallace and Grommit stamps aren't an attack on our traditional Christian heritage. They just aren't. And did I mention that no-one has banned Christmas?) But just lately, atheists, secularists and biologists have adopted the tactic of pretending that they can get just as frequently and just as pointlessly annoyed as their opponents can.

There's a pointless column in the Guardian in which pointless celebrities are asked to fill out a pointless questionnaire. Last year, one of them was pointlessly asked what historical period he would most like to visit. "The Garden of Eden", he replied. A pointless atheist sent a pointless letter to the next issue's pointless letter page pointlessly  pointing out that the Garden of Eden wasn't a real place so har-har aren't Christians silly? There was an apparently serious article on the Dawk's website pretending to be very cross indeed that guests on Desert Island Discs are still asked the question "Which one book would you choose to take to a desert island -- assuming that the works of Shakespeare and the Bible are already there?" This proves that atheists are worse off in modern England than homosexuals were in 1950s America. 

I guess this is how all political discourse works. If one side does something stupid, the other side's first reaction is to try to do something even stupider.

Now, if Polly Toynbee or someone had objected to the Archdruid's poster because it was quite clever and might encourage people to go to church, and that this was a bad thing because if people went to church they might come out thinking that God exists, and that would be a bad thing because he doesn't, that might have been a good point, in a "not a particularly good point" kind of way. I don't blame foaming non-theists for objecting to the Narnia books any more than I blame foaming theists for objecting to the Dark Materials books. I even sort of saw the point of the non-theistic bus campaign: if the worst kind of Christian can stick risible posters on the sides of buses saying that God exists, then obviously the worst kind of atheist is entitled to stick equally risible posters on other buses saying that he doesn't, or at any rate, probably doesn't. (The question about how, whether, and what kind of religious advertising ought to be allowed in a secular society is more interesting. But not much more interesting.)

But this isn't what the storm in a mulled wine glass is about. Oh no. No, some secularist bods came up with the wheeze of pretending that they thought that the ultrasound Jesus is part of a sinister pro-life campaign by the Church of England.

Ultrasound pictures of foetuses look like babies. And people who don't agree with abortion want people who do agree with abortion to think that abortion involves killing babies. People who do agree with abortion are more inclined to say that a foetus is not a baby, but a thing which happens to look like a baby. So people who don't agree with abortion sometimes show people who do agree with abortion ultrasound pictures of foetuses to make the point that foetuses look so much like babies that they probably actually are babies. So ultrasound images of foetuses are now so much associated with people who don't agree with abortion that publishing one of those images in any context leaves you open to the charge of not agreeing with abortion, and although quite a lot of people don't agree with abortion, saying you don't agree with abortion is very offensive to people who do.

I trust this is perfectly clear.

Hard to work out what terms to use in these sorts of discussion, isn't it? In the first paragraph, I very naturally typed "ultra-sound photo of an unborn baby" because that's the normal English way of talking about such things, but changed it to "human foetus" for fear of offending my feminist friends, of whom I will very shortly not have any left. But that's biased the other way. A person I otherwise respect and admire (he is related by marriage to an author for whom I have occasionally expressed admiration) once remarked in an Internet forum that "foetus" is an offensive term, like "nigger" or "gook", used to dehumanize people who you want to kill. And I just typed "pro-life", which is a completely meaningless term, like "pro-air". Stick around long enough, and I'll probably be saying that someone or something is "pro-choice".

See? Words do affect how you think.

Now, my usual line on such things is the same as that of Mr C.S Lewis, to wit, that since I am neither a woman, nor a married man, nor a priest, the best approach would be to keep my mouth very firmly shut about birth control, abortion, and all the other complicated messy icky stuff that happens in the months before the Christening Party.

Assuming that you are allowed to go to Christening parties . Christening a child is worse than sexually interfering with him, isn't it? I lose track.

Someone once made out a very convincing case for renaissance religious art having had a consistent, theologically significant iconography around illustrations of the infant Christ's penis. At least, I assume it was a convincing case. I didn't read the book. I'm not actually sure why I even mentioned it.

Last month I heard the folk group Kerfuffle doing a very good concert of traditional English carols. One of the songs told the story of how some older lads took the mickey out of the boy Jesus, because he was poor and his mother was no better than she ought to be. So Jesus drowned them. The boys' parents are bit put out by this, and complain to Mary. So Mary puts Jesus across her knee and gives hm a good whacking. Christian children all must be, mild, obedient, good as he.

I'm not sure why I mentioned that either, to be perfectly honest. I do like the way in which the long instrumental break wobbles between "John Barleycorn" and "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen".

If we saw the image of a halo placed over a picture of the adult Jesus, the boy Jesus in the temple, the baby Jesus being suckled by the Virgin, or the new-born Jesus in the manger, we would take that halo to indicate that Jesus was a very special person. And one might have supposed that it was pretty uncontroversial to say that Christians do, in fact, think that Jesus was a very special person indeed.

Pelagians like Charles Dickens and Geraldine Granger believe that "Son of God" is a descriptive phrase -- it refers to all the special things that the grown-up Jesus did. His followers were so impressed with his innovative suggestion that you should be nice to people that they invented the title "Son of God" to emphasise what a good and original idea being nice to people was. And then they pretended that Jesus had applied it to himself.  (Fortunately, the bits where they say he said that we should be nice to people are completely historically reliable, even though the bits where they say that he said that he was the Son of God aren't.)

But that's not what Christians think: and its a safe bet that at least some of the people paying for the Christmas Begins With Christ campaign are Christians. Christians think that some intrinsic Jesusness of Jesus was already there when he was a child and a baby -- before he'd had a chance to say or do anything at all. And that was what the person who photoshopped the halo onto the foetus was presumably trying to convey.




If you are a Christian, this is all terribly uncontroversial. "Come and behold him, born the King of Angels", we sing. "The little lord Jesus asleep on the hay", we sing. "Veiled in flesh, the godhead see" ,we sing, hardly stopping to wonder if we are  unconsciously slipping into the docetist heresy. "Our God contracted to a span incomprehensibly made man". That's Christianity. If you don't believe it, you don't believe it, but there isn't much point in whining because some Christians still do.

(I suppose I have to allow the possibility that "Christians think that Jesus was special" is a completely novel idea to children and Guardian readers. Only a couple of years ago, we had a supermarket straightfacedly telling us that Easter commemorated the birth of Jesus. And before that, a surprising number of perfectly intelligent people seemed to be genuinely surprised that Mel Gibson regarded the Crucifixion as a central and iconic element in his faith. Perhaps the idea that Jesus, Mohammad and Bob Geldof are three roughly equivalent examples of People Who Have Helped The World is so entrenched in school R.E lessons that Rowan Williams really does need to take out an advertising campaign to counteract it.)

In Max Ernst's surrealist take on the Bitter Withy, the boy Jesus halo falls off while the Virgin punishes him. (Or maybe she punishes him because his halo has fallen off?)  No idea whatsoever why I mentioned that.




If we are say that Jesus Was Special, does it follow that Baby Jesus Was Special, and therefore that Baby Jesus Was Special Even Before He Was Born. If Baby Jesus Was Special Before He Was Born, does it follow that babies in general can b e special even before they are born? If Unborn Jesus had an intrinsic Jesusness, does it follow that Unborn Andrew and an intrinsic Andrewness? Does the mere attribution of qualities to a human shaped figure in an ultrasound photograph come dangerously close to saying the foetuses are human beings? And does that represent a tick in the box against abortion being a morally neutral act? Did, in short, the people who thought that the C of E Christmas poster was presenting a subtle pro-life argument actually have a point. Not so much because the pro-life brigade own all images of unborn children, but because there's something "pro-life" in the whole idea of the Incarnation?

A belief in the personhood of the foetus does not, so far as I can see, logically imply that abortion is morally wrong under all circumstances, much less that it should be prohibited by law. Nearly all of us accept that persons can legitimately be sacrificed to the common good. We all regard dead miners as a price well worth paying for coal-powered electricity stations. We all regard dead pedestrians as acceptable collateral damage in the cause of getting from point A to point B very fast. We may say that we don't, but we do. But if we could convince our self that the children being knocked over at pedestrian crossings weren't humans, but only human shaped objects, we'd feel less guilty about ignoring red lights when the road was quiet and we were in a hurry. Stupid people frequently claim that torture and executions don't violate anyone's human rights because the sorts of people who get tortured and executed don't really count as human. The noxious expression "feral child" is worth rolling around your tongue for a few minutes, too.

I'm sorry: I said I wasn't going to talk about this.

And of course, the extreme anti-abortion position is a mirror image of this: people who would like to see abortion prohibited under all circumstances fear that once you allow abortion to be a morally neutral act -- once you concede that a foetus is not a person, but  only a person-shaped object -- you may end up saying that babies are only person-shaped objects; children are only person shaped object; in fact, people in general are only people shaped objects. And that this will be terribly convenient the next time you want to start killing them.

I think  that this is what they must have in mind when they talk about life being "sacred" because people (even unborn people) have "souls". I don't think that they think that the "soul" is a funny little ethereal butterfly that lives in the pineal gland and needs protection. (Has anyone ever really believed that?  Did St Paul? Did Descartes? Plato did, I suppose.) They mean that they want us to think of "human beings" as whole, finished, things -- not lumps of meat, collections of atoms, bags of organs, but, well, people. They mean that "everyone is 'I' ". They mean that everyone has their own subjective experience, that you can and should and must imagine what it would be like to be a murderer, or a torture victim, or an infant, or a foetus -- or, in some versions, a fox or a whale  or a sperm -- and that you can never do to one of those little "I"s what you would not want done to you. And then they rather sacrifice the moral high ground by setting fire to clinics and assassinating doctors.

Some of them, I mean. One wouldn't want to blame a whole group for the behaviour of its most extreme members. Oh no.

There are times when its quite useful to think of humans as human shaped lumps of meat. Say, when you performing an autopsy, or when you  are dropping bombs on a school. (To preserve freedom of course; and we all agree that my freedom, by which we mean my right to read the newspaper of my choice and have a choice of which church to attend, is far more important than the lives of foreign children. We may say that we don't, but we do.) There are other times when it is very difficult to think of humans in that way: when the lump of meat is your own child, for example, or the person you want to marry, or the composer of Hey, Mr Tambourine Man.

Who was it who said "God isn't a thing you could find in the Universe: he's a way of thinking about the Universe"? The soul isn't something you could find by dissecting a brain or weighing a dying patient: it's a way of thinking about brains and dying people. Most people happily shift between the two ways of thinking. Extremists on both sides think that there's only one perspective and that the other one can be abolished. Along, very probably, with the people who agree with it. 

Do the people who believe that everyone is special believe that because they believe that God really and truly historically became a baby, whatever "became" means? With the corollary that, if you could prove that the story of the Incarnation was completely unhistorical, they'd all suddenly say "Oh, well in that case, we're fine with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and capital punishment after all." Or have they embraced the story of the Incarnation because they already believe in the specialness of the human race? Or was the story only ever a way of saying a thing about the specialness of human beings that won't quite fit into ordinary language?

Well, it's no terribly big discovery that Christians think that Jesus' specialness conveyed specialness on everybody else? What was that hymn that Miss Walker taught us: "....and that a higher gift than Grace should flesh and blood refine: God's presence and his very self and essence all sublime." Not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but the taking up of that manhood into God, as the fellow said.



Mr Richard Dawkins thinks that the  "soul" way of thinking about human beings is so wrong -- and so obviously the result of the "god" way of thinking about the universe -- that he wastes spends a whole section of his book-shaped -object on something he calls "The Great Beethoven Fallacy." (In biology, "great" has the specialised meaning of "a thing I read on the Internet and found irritating". A similar usage occurs in the Daily Mail, so that "Several people have complained about new arrangements for refuse collection" becomes "The Great Bin-Bag Revolt.")

The "great" fallacy is that Beethoven's mum was unmarried, poor, had lots of other kids, some of whom were sick, and that his Dad had multiple sexually transmitted diseases. Any proponent of legal abortion would have allowed her to have a termination and thus killed the second greatest composer who ever lived. Any fool can see the problem with this argument: you might just as well say that Mrs Beethoven had prevented the Fifth Symphony from being written if she'd told a horny Mr Beethoven that she was feeling quite tired and would just as soon curl up with a cup of cocoa and watch Vienna's Got Talent tonight, if that okay with him.

Dawkins thinks that one of the advantages of curing us all of the belief in God is that we'll also be cured of the belief that every unborn baby is a potential little Beethoven. We will stop regarding human life as sacred, and start permitting stems cell research, euthanasia, abortion, assisted suicide, infanticide, the death penalty for people who go to the Noah's Ark  Farm Zoo etc [Check this. Ed.]

The Beethoven paradox is, in fact, a joke: on the level of the one about the two fish in the tank. ("Do you know how to drive this thing?") It forcibly drags you from one way of looking at the world (humans are lumps of organic matter, tanks are a kind of small aquarium) to another (everyone is special  and some people are so astonishingly special that they write symphonies; tanks are a sort of military vehicle.) If you only believe in one perspective, then, of course, you won't "get" the joke. I doubt if someone raised in a nudist colony would understand why people laugh at nob jokes.

Images of foetuses wearing halos; legends in which Jesus is both the Messiah and a very naughty boy: poems about "the Word within the word unable to speak a word" are holy paradoxes  -- jokes even -- in very much the same spirit. So, come to that, are Renaissance paintings which draw attention to Christs'...er...manhood. Not "half god and half human" as the Guardian theatre critic thinks, but completely God and completely God and completely human. Try and get your head round the idea that Jesus was an eight year old and also God. Bet you can't! But try and get your head round the idea that the mind that wrote the choral symphony was embedded in a lump of meat -- bet you can't do that either!
 
Most of us do in fact believe in the sacredness of human life. We may say we don't, but we do. We think of unborn children as "he" or "she"; we say "she is carrying my son" or "my baby kicked". We expend huge amounts of love and energy on differently abled people who are never going to have a very high quality of life. We say "This is where Granny is buried", not "This is where the lump of matter that used to be my granny is buried" or  even "My granny stopped existing and so we chucked the remains in the dustbin." We get very cross indeed when doctors cut up dead people without asking permission.

And maybe we shouldn't. Maybe no baby can ever have a halo. Maybe no person can. Maybe there is no cosmic joke. Maybe here is only one way of looking at things. Maybe we should think of the thing in Mummy's Tummy as a very complex lump of matter that is in the process of becoming a person; but feel no sadder when it dies than if we had (say) had our tonsils removed. Or damaged a complex plasticine model of the Albert Hall that we'd taken a good deal of trouble over. That's a perfectly viable position. Some societies, have, I guess, been more callous or less sentimental about babies than we are. About children. About people.

It's a complicated philosophical question and there are good arguments on both sides. But the idea that Church of England is being a bit naughty by possibly alluding to one side of the complicated argument in public is a little bit worrying.  It's like, we're taking it for granted than one way of looking at things is always right and the other way of looking at things is always wrong.

Assuming a consensus where no consensus exists. "You can't sing the Cherry Tree Carol: it expresses an idea about un-born children which doesn't agree with my philosophical position. It is a pretty story but it is, how you say, politically incorrect." 



Dear Andrew

It is quite clear from the above that you are a [misogynist] [baby murderer] and wish to [perpetrate a silent holocaust] [reduce all women to the status of Gorean breeding machines]. At the very least, in trying to be even handed, you have pretended that the [deluded pro-life lobby] [deluded pro-choice lobby] have a valid point of view. Right thinking folks simply do not engage with [baby murderers] [misogynists]. But that is what I would expect from a [liberal] [fundamentalist] [Romanc Catholic] like yourself. If you were not surrounded by people like [Nick Eden] [Sam Dodsworth] [Phil Masters] who think you are a genius and agree with everything you say regardless, you would think more carefully before dashing off this sort of rubbish.

I agree, however, that Kerfuffle are excellent.

Anonymous [via Blackberry.]

Saturday, January 08, 2011

It is, I suppose, just barely possible that someone reading this blog hasn't seen this yet.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Oh, and while we're here: another gem from Mr Boden. This was the sort of happy story Victorians used to sing around the piano, apparently.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

You really need to read Kevin Arscott's essay on the Winterval Myth. It's 40+ pages long, and you have to download it as a PDF. It's long, comprehensive, detailed, doesn't contain many jokes, and gets quite angry towards the end. But it's probably the most important thing you'll read this Christmas. 

You may come to the end of it saying, like I did: "I didn't realise things had got this bad."

Oh, and it reveals a crucial and neglected piece of data. Birmingham's original Winterval lights were turned on by no less a personage than Barny the Dinosaur.

What do we want? FOLK MUSIC ON THE WIRELESS! When do we want it? NOW! What do we say? PLEASE!


Homosexual Frogs [6]

By now, everybody knows about the Winterval myth.



Local government is notoriously unpopular in the UK. While our income tax magically vanishes from our pay packet each month, we actually have to write a cheque for our Council Tax, so it feels like Real Money. So, at least since the days of Ken Livingstone, it has been prudent for councils to engage in a bit of creative PR: sticking the letters "GLC" or "The Mayor of London" on every bus, every dust-bin van, every library, every concert hall -- if possible, every boy scout hut and art class that gets council funding -- so local people are aware of how their money is actually being spent. Much harder to say "The council only cares about one legged black lesbians" if the library van that brings books to the old lady next door as "Bristol City Council" painted on the side in large, friendly letters.



And this, I take it, is what Birmingham Council did in 1998: came up with a logo and stuck it on every special event that it ran between October and December in 1998 -- not only the Carol Concert and the Christmas tree, but also Guy Fawkes Night and the Children in Need Telethon and, yes, Eid and Diwali and Hanukkah too. So that when election time came round and people said "what has the council ever done for me?" there was some chance that some of them would think "Well, they did organize the city firework display that the kids so much enjoyed."



However, the Daily Mail goes three times round the world before the Guardian has got its boots on, and there is now no chance of killing off the theory that Winterval was a new festival, invented by Herbert Marcuse and Jacques Derrida, intended to undermine the foundations of western civilisation and justified on the spurious grounds that Christmas is offensive to Muslims. (Which it isn't and it wouldn't matter if it was because this is our country and if they didn't want to join the Church of England they should go back to Iraq not that I'm one of them racists but I don't see why they should get special treatment, you never see white people getting special treatment, do you?)



Now, in previous years, when the Common Sense Brigade have tried to perpetuate the the Winterval scam, they have always pretended that Christmas had been prohibited: that Birmingham City Council, in thrall to the evil Communist Frankfurter had decreed that light-skinned people were not allowed to celebrate in the traditional, Christian way in case it offended dark skinned people. Obviously, since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the tabloids and the British National Party have started to use "Muslim" as a surrogate for "furriner". So they increasingly pretended that Birmingham City Council had cancelled Christmas "so as not to offend Muslims".



It need hardly be said that no-one has ever come up with a single credible instance of anyone ever attempting to ban Christmas, ever. Indeed, in recent years, German style Christmas markets have become popular so there are probably more Christmas trees, Santa Clauses and indeed Baby Jesi on English Streets than ever before. (The first English town to go in for Christkindlmarkts in a big way was, er, Birmingham.)



So. It was never about banning Christmas. (The original Winterval posters had bloody great Christmas trees on them, for Wotan's sake.) So what was it about?



Depressingly, the press release from Eric Pickles, picked up with gusto by the right-wing newspapers, has come very clean about the real agenda.


"I believe we should take greater pride in Britain's Christian heritage. We should celebrate the Nativity and all the traditions that have sprung up around Christmas from turkey and tree lights to tinsel and tea towels adorning the heads of infant angels and shepherds. I feel very strongly we should actively celebrate the Christian basis of Christmas, and not allow politically correct Grinches to marginalise Christianity and the importance of the birth of Christ."



Mr Pickles isn't suggesting that Christmas has been banned. Everybody knows it hasn't been. He isn't even suggesting that the Christian elements of Christmas have been banned: every chorus of the Little Drummer Boy blared out over every tannoy in every shopping Mall gives the lie to that. (Every angel on every Christmas tree, every supermarket which inexplicably runs out of tea-towels in December.) No: he is suggesting, from his pedestal as minister for local government, that Municipal Christmas should be more Christian. That elected local councils should "actively celebrate the Christian basis of Christmas".



Now, it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either Christmas is a Christian festival in the same way that Hanukkah is a Jewish festival, or it isn't. And either you want Municipal celebration to be inclusive, or you don't. If Christmas is a "Christian" festival, then Jews probably won't want to join in.



Jews are perfectly happy to eat mince pies at Christmas (provided they don't contain pork fat, which they usually don't.) The standard answer to the question "What do Jews do at Christmas" is "Exactly the same as you, only we don't go to church." But the more Baby Jesus works his way into Municipal Christmas, the less comfortable (I imagine) Jewish people are going to be with it.

Municipal Christmas has always involved some singing of Carols round the Christmas Tree, but Jews and Atheists probably don't might singing songs about Baby Jesus, even though they don't believe in Him. (They don't mind singing songs about Santa Claus, and they don't believe in him, either. Richard Dawkins himself claims to enjoy a bit of carol singing. He probably doesn't go to Midnight Mass, or if he does, he probably stays in his seat during the actual sacrament.) If you decide that your Carols Round the Tree are going to include some Bible readings, then you've started to identify it as a party for religious folks. If the local Bishop gives a talk, even more so. Throw in an open air Holy Communion, and it's become an exclusively Christian event. The Jews and the Atheists will mostly stay at home.



And get this: since the 1950 quite a number of people with dark skin have moved to this country, and quite a number of those dark skinned people have been Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. (Not all of them: there are a lot of Christian churches wouldn't have a congregation if it wasn't for Afro-Caribbean communities.) So the idea that Baby Jesus should play a bigger and bigger role in Municipal Christmas means that fewer and fewer of those dark skinned people would want to join in with it.



All of these things would be complete innovations: Baby Jesus has never played that big a part in Municipal Christmas. Its always been mainly about mistletoe and wine.



"The Political Correctness Brigade Has Banned Christmas" is code for "The Common Sense Brigade Wants to Exclude People Who Aren't Cultural Christians From Christmas" which is code for "The Common Sense Brigade Wants To Exclude Dark Skinned People From Christmas" which is very probably code for the "The Common Sense Brigade Wishes That There Weren't Any Dark Skinned People Here At All".



As ever, it is left to the Nasty Express to make this explicit.


" Last week, Rochdale Council provoked anger after it decided to celebrate Eid and Diwali alongside Christmas in a display of lights."



It was never the absence of Christian symbols that the Common Sense Brigade were objecting to. It was always the presence of anything else.



Kind of like what happened during the Nazi era.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Homosexual Frogs (5)

But, of course, language is sometimes used to create a consensus were no consensus in fact exists. 

If I describe someone as "a black person" (rather than "negro" or even "n----r") you correctly infer that behind my use of the word "black" lurks the assumption that black people are just as good as white people; that skin colour and heritage don't matter very much; and that even if they did  matter it  still wouldn't be nice to use words which upset people. 
 
But it would be quite odd to describe the word "black" as Politically Correct. There really is a consensus. The word is based on a set of assumptions we really do all share. Yes, some people do routinely use the n-word. In doing so, they rule themselves outside of polite discourse. Society includes a handful of racists. It also includes a handful of nudists. We treat the guy in the pub who calls black men "n-----s" the same way as we treat the guy in the pub who gets his willy out. We ask him to leave. If he doesn't, we call the cops. Or the bobbies. Or... 

If I describe someone as "a bobby", rather than "a pig", or "the filth" then you rightly infer that behind the word lurks the assumption that police officers are rather cute, rather honourable, rather innocent, if perhaps not always terribly bright people, whose job it is to help us out when we are in trouble. And it would be quite reckless of me to assume that everyone, or even most people, agree with me about that. For all I know, you might think that so-called police officers are sinister agents who are paid by the state to coerce free people into behaving in whatever way the government of the day finds convenient. Or you may think that police officers are overwhelmingly thugs who get off on the exercise of petty power -- who get their jollies from yelling at people and telling them what to do. And handcuffs, of course. Handcuffs are sexy. Or you may think that black people are much more likely to be stopped than white people, or that the police are somehow always too busy to help when your mobile phone is nicked but thousands of them can be spared to cavalry charge harmless students complaining about government education policy. And that when one of them murders a protester, the establishment closes ranks and lets the officer get off stop free. 

To say nothing about the summary execution of innocent people outside tube stations.

But who ever described the word "bobby" as an example of Political Correctness, mad or otherwise?

If you say "serviceman" (or "our-valiant-service-men-and-women", or simply "heroes") then you are using P.C language to impose your idea that soldiers are brave, self-sacrificing individuals with a vocation to keep the world free from terrorism and safe for democracy -- rather than the worst kind of thug, little boys with nasty toys propping up the west's imperialistic enterprise in the middle east without thinking about the implications because they're not capable of getting a job in a civilized society. 
 
Never mind which side you agree with, of if you think I have possibly unduly polarized the two positions. Never mind if it's possible to oppose stupid wars but still respect soldiers.  "Bobby" and "War Hero" are ideologically loaded terms  in a way that "Chairperson" and "Lone Parent" really aren't. There is far more monolithic social pressure to wear a poppy on November 11th than there has ever been to say "Season's Greetings" rather than "Happy Christmas". 

It is the right, not the left, who assume a consensus which does not really exist. It is the right, not the left, who seek to colonize language and make it impossible to even think that "law and order" "democracy" "patriotism" "freedom" "liberty" may not be  quite as good as they're cracked up to be. It is the right who have come up with Politically Correct euphemisms like "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation" in order to imply that everyone agrees that torture is sometimes okay, when they really, really, really don't. And it is, of course, the right who overwhelmingly control the media, mainstream or otherwise. 

I don't, in fact, think that Bill Windsor is a parasitic little shit whose gormless good looks give spurious credibility to a repressive institution which makes Britain a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world and whose wedding should, at best, be given the same coverage as any other "celebrity" or "society" wedding. 

But if I did say such things the Common Sense Brigade would be be down on me like a metric tonne of bricks.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Homosexual Frogs (4)

I think that people originally objected to Political Correctness because they felt that language was being used to create a consensus where no consensus in fact existed.

"We used to say unmarried mother" they said. "But you say that one person can just as well raise a child as two; and that one person might just as well be a man as a woman; and that its perfectly normal for two people to live together and raise a child without actually being married. So you think that we should stop saying unmarried mother and start saying lone parent instead. We aren't sure that what you say is true; and we are quite sure that not everybody agrees that what you say is true. You are trying to change the language to make it look as if you've won an argument that we haven't had yet."

Or "We think that it's perfectly fair to give a job to the person who is best suited to do that job; and we think that there are some jobs -- ones involving lifting heavy things, for example -- that men do better than women. So it's down to you to prove that a woman can work in the fire brigade just as well as man can. If she can, then by all means call her a firewoman. But we don't think its fair to change the word from fireman to firefighter and pretend that you've already proved it."

And yes, the response to that is obvious enough: "Well, if it comes to that, why should you be able to insist on us saying fireman, which makes it look as if you have already won the argument."

I think that the term Political Correctness was then extended to apply to any legislation, rule, or other action which appeared to assume a false consensus. No-one really cares if the baker sells gingerbread men or gingerbread women. I've seen them selling gingerbread teddies and gingerbread bunnies. And gingerbread aliens. But when I see a sign saying "Gingerbread People" I may, without absurdity, think "Behind this sign lurks an assumption that men and women are exactly the same; and that everyone agrees with this. I am not sure I agree than men and women are the same; and I am quite sure that not everybody thinks they are. Hence, these are Politically-Correctness-Gone-Mad biscuits."

It is, I suppose, a small jump from "false consensus" to "invisible mind control lasers being used by Jewish Communists from their secret base in Frankfurt to undermine Western civilisation." It isn't clear if the Nasty Mail, the Nasty Express and the Nasty Telegraph believe in the Communist Conspiracy Theory. Some of their rentaquotes clearly do.

*

We are all Liberals here. We all agree that people should be free to hold different opinions -- even opinions that we think are blatantly silly and wrong. We find it very distasteful that country folk get their jollies from watching foxes being killed by foxhounds; but we also think it is quite unfair that country people should be stopped from playing a game they've been playing for years just because we happen to find it distasteful. It would be odd for us to believe that hard drugs should legalized (carefully, over a period of years, with many safeguards) and not to have some sympathy with tobacco users who think that their recreational chemicals are being incrementally criminalized. But we think that there have to be laws of some kind: either fox hunting is legal, or it isn't; either you can smoke in public places, or you can't. And there isn't always going to be a consensus. If you can smoke in pubs, that annoys the non-smokers. If you can't smoke in pubs, that annoys the smokers. Sensible laws are sometimes made in the face of public opinion. The one that said that there should be hundred pennies in the pound, rather than two hundred and forty is one example; the one that said that men shouldn't be sent to prison for fancying other men is another. There are almost bound to be some laws that we agree with and some laws that we'd quite like to change. But the last thing we, as liberals, would ever do, is suggest that our opinions are Common Sense. There's no such thing as Common Sense. Only good and less good arguments and messy compromises.

*

The idea of Common Sense is, in fact, a form of thought control. A form of social engineering. A way of saying that there is a correct way of looking at things and everything else is incorrect. Social dementia. One true way-ism. Everything which the people who believe in the Protocols of the Secret Elders of Frankfurt accuse of Political Correctness of being.

*

Everyone, I guess, thinks that their political beliefs are the neutral ones, and that anyone who disagrees is foolishly introducing politics into areas which should be apolitical.

Everyone knows that classical music is just music, the best notes in the best order, and that jazz is simply a cacophonous sound made by people who aren't good enough musicians to play properly. (And don't even mention rock 'n roll.)

People, like me, who use received pronunciation are simply reading the words that are actually written on the page. Cockneys and Geordies lazily and careless miss out letters and pronounce the vowels wrongly. And if they are so lazy that they can't read an "h" sound which is clearly there on the page, then they'll probably be too lazy to do the job properly, so best only employ people who sound posh, eh?

Mrs Thatcher herself claimed that the May Day bank holiday was too political, and suggested it be replaced with something less political, such as, er, Winston Churchill's birthday.

And Bill Land says, quite explicitly, that Socialism and Marxism are political ideologies, but Conservatism is not.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it? My beliefs are obviously true. Your beliefs are obviously false. You can't really believe what you say you believe: you must be pretending to believe it for some reason. Because you want to bring down Western Civilisation. Because Satan secretly controls the Media. Because you have a little Midchlorian living in your head. Because the Liberals dominate the Mainstream Media. Because you're a man, and think mainly with your penis. Because you're a lady, and your little head gets over heated at particular times of the month. I don't need to listen to your ideas to see that they are wrong, any more than I need to listen to jazz to see that it is just noise. 

Best just stand over here and call each other nasty names.

*

I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: think it possible that you might be mistaken.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Homosexual Frogs (3)

You can't read about the Political Correctness conspiracy for very long before coming across the following "joke".

"Political Correctness is the belief that it is possible to hold a turd by the clean end." 

Actually, the joke originally took the form "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end".  American academics don't really do "humour", do they?

I have to admit that it took me some time to work out why this "joke" was "funny". I think -- I am not certain, but I think -- that the point is that Political Correctness is an obvious absurdity; a self-contradictory belief; an idea that doesn't need to be refuted because it obviously goes against Common Sense. 

If I say you are being Politically Correct then I am not saying that you are trying to do a good thing (e.g. reduce violence against women) in a silly or over the top way (e.g. by banning Punch and Judy shows). I am saying that the whole idea that there is such a thing as violence against women is silly in itself: so silly that it isn't worth explaining why, as silly as thinking that you can hold a turd by the clean end.

As we have seen, the following are examples of Common Sense propositions:

* It's OK -- in fact, it's essential -- to beat children with objects, hard enough to cut or bruise them.

* It's OK to hunt wild animals with dogs.

* Jews have a natural tendency to work in finance.

* Asians have a natural tendency to work in retail.

* Chinese people have a natural tendency to gamble

* Employers aren't responsible for their employees safety.

* There's no need to check someone's criminal record before letting them work with kids.

* You should be allowed to advocate genocide if you want to.

* You should be allowed to promote race hate if you want.

* You should be allowed to use racial slurs in public if you want to.

* There's no such thing as man made climate change.

Did I mention global warming? Mr The Awful Truth is particularly good on this one. Common Sense tells us that global warming must be a scam. The weathermen can't tell us what the weather is going to be like three days in the future, so why believe them when they tell us what it's going to be like in fifty years. [1] One fine day, The Political Correctness Brigade noticed that the argument "you can't do this because it's offensive" didn't work in all circumstances. They needed an even stronger argument to further their agenda. The one they thought that no-one would dare contradict was "you can't do this because it will destroy the planet". They invented the idea of global warming so they could use that argument when all else failed.  Oh and they did this with consciously malicious intent: they have a positive plan or policy to cause as much damage to the country as possible, and are using "you can't do this because it's racist" "you can't do this because it will destroy the planet" to further that policy.

This is not something which I am reading into Mr The Awful Truth's website. This is precisely what he says. He defines The Political Correctness Brigade as consisting of "anyone from a left wing, socialist, or Labour background". These people have

"a left wing policy to cause damage to the country and as it defies common sense, (they) don't want it openly discussed - unlimited immigration?"

However

"The half sensible reason to appeal to the half sensible is the downfall - 'it would offend' - clearly has its limits. They needed another idea to appeal to peoples better nature and what better than 'saving the planet'?"

This is

"All part of the same left wing agenda. This agenda will be used as a cover to impose crazy left wing ideas on us - high on the list will be the attack on the car and motorist."

It isn't immediately clear to me why not liking cars is regarded as "left wing", but then, I come from a Labour background, so I am out destroy the country. So don't pay any attention to anything I say.

What appears to have happened here is that some ideas from American right-wing nutters have crossed the Atlantic and, half-understood, been absorbed into the thought processes of relatively harmless disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells types who think that six of the best never did them any harm [2] and it's rather silly to put "may contain nuts" on bags of nuts.

I attempted to read Bill Lind's notorious essay on the Origins of Political Correctness. It made my head spin, rather. 

Most English people would, I assume, and without resorting to any stereotypes about gun-tooting hang-em-high Merkin fundamentalists, imagine that the centre ground of American politics is rather to the right of the centre ground of English politics. Their Democrats are well to the right of our Labour Party. They think Liberal means "extreme"; we think Liberal means "middle of the road". We see Obama as moderate, even right of centre: they see him as astonishingly or, even frighteningly, left wing. Our own dear Lady Thatcher was regarded as right-wing even by members of the Conservative Party, but she never challenged the principal of free health care. (We may not like how she ran the NHS, but she never remotely said that it should be abolished.) She never said that citizens should be allowed to carry guns. She never made it party policy to restore the death penalty. She stopped teachers from hitting children. She was, by many American's standards, a liberal.

So its quite a surprise to discover that America is in fact practically a Soviet client state, with universities in particular run along North Korean lines, and legal sanctions brought to bare on anyone who strays from the path of orthdox Marxism. White Americans, it turns out, are practically powerless -- they have been systematically disenfranchised by the ruling elite, just as the bourgeois in Communist countries had their assets seized. So powerful is the gay mafia that no-one dare come out as heterosexual. Liberals have complete control over the media, so no Conservative or right wing views ever get aired. And all this -- this Soviet takeover of America -- can be laid at the door of a thing called Political Correctness.

No, really.

It turns out that, in order to destroy western civilisation and apple pie, them darn reds needed to translate their godless queer loving Marxist ideas into philosophical terms. So they started up something which was first called the Institute for Marxism and then became the Institute for Social Research and then became Political Correctness. One of their main tools for world domination was a fantastically obscure branch of literary criticism:

"For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired."

No, I don't know how you draw a line from Adorno, Marcusse, the Frankfurt school and and deconstruction to the belief that it's nicer to say "people who can't speak" rather than "dumb people". I don't even know why the idea that it's okay to like people whose private parts are the same shape as your private parts is "left wing". I venture to say that Mr and Mrs Midgley and Mr The Awful Truth don't know either. I am very doubtful if the people who think that we must at all costs resist the encroachment of gingerbread people on our traditional way of life have studied Eros and Civilisation or On Grammatology at all closely. But they do seem to have absorbed the idea that anything which annoys them is part of an International Communist Conspiracy -- and that this conspiracy is so pervasive that white, heterosexual males are effectively an oppressed minority. 

We have seen that Mr The Awful Truth specifically identified the Political Correctness Brigade with the political left. He seems to have got this from Lind. It's quite fun to watch his attempts to translate Lind's right-wing rant-speak into the broken English of the internet chat room: 

"At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing. And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help Western Civilization to destroy itself by undermining its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals. One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalising your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices. Then use this to stifle any discussion which might show up the lack of common sense in their ideology. And call it something that sounds positive: Political Correctness."

The Midgley's are committed to the same conspiracy theory. It's not just about gingerbread mean and the great British gollywog. Political Correctness was invented by the Communists. 

"Well, it is understood that the concept was thought up by a group of intellectuals who came together to form the “Frankfurt School” in 1923. They developed “Cultural Marxism” and “Critical Theory”. The institute was modelled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933 the members of the Frankfurt School moved to the United States and eventually spread out onto the campuses of American Colleges."

That's why bonfireless bonfire nights are such a serious attack on our way of life. 

"Political correctness is about trying to control peoples thoughts -- determining that there is a correct way of looking at things and that everything else is incorrect....You have the very disturbing social engineering we see rampant in our schools."

Dangerous intellectuals... Jews...s ocial engineering... thought control... subjugation of the individual... Marxist... Communist... stifling discussion. When a council asks a cafe to move an extractor fan because the smell of bacon is disturbing to Jewish and Muslim neighbours you might think that they are just being over sensitive. But they're not. They're conscously working towards the downfall of western civilisation. 

Kind of like what existed during the Nazi era.





[1] Actually, I have to admit it, there's a kind of mad genius to that remark. It delights me in the way that some of Dave Sim's arguments delight me. 

[2] "Oh? Then what did?" - A. A. Milne

Friday, December 17, 2010

Homosexual Frogs (2)

Some people think that "A" level exams are now so easy that an "A" grade is almost without value.

Some people think that office workers should be allowed to stand on a chair to change a light bulb without getting a mate to hold the chair steady first.

Some people think that, in our zeal to protect children from child molesters, we have started to check the criminal records of people whose criminal records don't really need to be checked.

Any one of those things might be true; but it is hard to see what each of them has in common, and what any one of them has to do with the belief that "gay" is a more polite word than "pooftah". Yet they are all routinely brought under the all embracing umbrella of Political Correctness. Kids aren't allowed to fail...elf and safety won't let you do anything...all adults are assumed to be paedophiles...It's Political Correctness Gone Mad.

This is, I think, a relatively new development. When the right first discovered Political Correctness -- in the 1980s -- they didn't really want it to mean much more than "hypersensitivity", especially, hypersensitivity about race. It might be okay to insist that we say "black person" rather than "nigger". It might even be okay to ask us to avoid using "black" in contexts like "accident black spot" or "black day for this country".[1]  But to tell us to call blackboards "chalkboards" and blacksmiths "smiths" -- well, that was Political Correctness. But they've more recently decided that anything from putting frosted glass in swimming pool windows to asking Christmas grottos to conform with fire-regulations are examples of Political Correctness Gone Mad.

So: what are the kinds of people who talk about Political Correctness talking about when they talk about Political Correctness? A rummage around the interweb has left me none the wiser. Mr Google first directed me to a website called Political Correctness: The Awful Truth which lists 25 areas in which Political Correctness has "replaced "British politics". 

For example: In 2004 a football coach was censured for calling a player a "fucking lazy nigger". [2] This was an example of Political Correctness, because (we are assured) the coach would not have been in trouble if he had called the man a "fucking lazy bastard" or a "fucking lazy wanker" -- even though this would have been equally rude.

Mr The Awful Truth thinks it is quite obvious to everyone that some races really do have inherent characteristics: Jews really do like to work in finance, Asians really do like to open corner shops, Chinese really do like to run take-aways. It is only Political Correctness that stops us from saying so. Because obviously, no-one does ever say that Chinese Take-Aways are often run by Chinese families. Only renegades like Mr The Awful Truth dare point this kind of thing out.

He rehearses some standard arguments for thinking that the prohibition of fox hunting was a bad idea: the fact that it was implemented anyway proves that Political Correctness had "made an ass of common sense".

It is obvious, he says, that children nowadays are allowed to do whatever they like -- just go to any supermarket and observe the state of anarchy there -- and it is equally obvious that this is the fault of "PC legislation" against smacking and caning. "I can only assume that the government is going all out for 100% anarchy in the classroom. The consequences for society will now be dire. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that." [3]

He concedes that slavery was a Bad Thing, but adds:

"So what I can't understand is why the PC Brigade is making so much fuss about something that happened hundreds of years ago and no one who was involved with it (on either side) is alive today. So who should apologise and to whom and why?...

If we are into apologies for past atrocities, why don't they call on Germany to apologise for two world wars and the slaughter of six million jews? Many of the people involved on both sides are still alive today."

Because Germans are well known for not having any guilt about their Nazi past. And there has been no movement to arrest and punish former Nazis.

Obviously.

Now, you might want to argue in favour of any of these points. Maybe "nigger" can be used as "low abuse" without actually implying that the speaker is racist -- in the same way that "wanker" can be used as low abuse without us inferring anything about the speaker's views on self-manipulation. Maybe you think that retrospective apologies for the slave trade are a bit daft and that it's pretty silly to stop half a dozen rich dudes from chasing foxes through the countryside but allow farmers to keep chickens in horribly cramped conditions. I'd be prepared to defend anyone one of Mr The Awful Truth's positions, apart from the one about inherent racial characteristics. [4]

But what do they all have in common? In what ways are they all examples of a thing called Political Correctness. Fortunately, Mr The Awful Truth tells us:

"the term Political Correctness includes:
1) Doing the reverse of what common sense would suggest
2) Inconveniencing the innocent while making life easier for the wrong do-er
3) Not telling the truth in case it offends
4) Changing the language where you perceive it may offend
5) Doing exactly the opposite of what you preach
6) What you do has the effect of making the problem you were trying to cure far worse
7) Doing ridiculous things just for a political reason
8) Favouring a minority just for a political reason"

Or, in short: Political Correctness is anything which I personally don't agree with. 

This doesn't help very much. But hold on to point 1, "common sense". We may come back to it.

Another website, called Our Civilisation is a little bit more helpful. Although it is couched in comically over-the-top rhetoric ("PC is a communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s" "Political Correctness is a social dementia") it starts out with a perfectly coherent definition. Political Correctness is about limiting freedom of speech. It claims to be about the avoidance of offence, but in fact, no-one has any right not to be offended. At one point, the writer Mr Civilisation seems to be veering to an actual definition: that Political Correctness is the idea that behaviour which was previously a matter of social convention became a matter of law. We used to say "If you say 'nigger' everyone will think you are an idiot and not want to be your friend" but we now say "If you say 'nigger' you will taken to court and fined."

Political Correctness, according to Mr Civilisation holds that "particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished." It's very doubtful if Political Correctness of this kind has ever existed: it is very doubtful that there has ever been a legal requirement backed up with legal sanctions that you should say "woman" rather than "lady" or "visually impaired" rather than "blind" or that anyone ever said there should be. But if there had been they would have been examples of Political Correctness. 

This is quite helpful. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a horse with an ivory horn on its forehead. But if there was, it would be called a unicorn: we know what we are talking about when we talk about unicorns, and if we ever saw one, we would recognise it.

The best Mr Civilisation can come up with is a law from Canada which makes it a crime to advocate genocide and another which makes it a crime to "wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group" ("except in private conversation"). Which rather implies that he thinks that before the social dementia set in, it would have been okay for me to make a public speech stirring up hatred against Ruritanians -- even to stand up and say "I think that we should wipe out all Ruritanians from the face of the earth". Saying that this is no longer okay seems to be a very mild form of social tyranny.

He has, in fact, a very strange theory that since our parents did, in fact, use terms like "nigger", "poof" and "coon" our declaration that such words are not acceptable amounts to a rejection of the values of the generation which won the Second World War. Political Correctness is nothing more than an act of infantile rebellion, in which we deliberately "revere" the people and value that our parents despised, go against tradition, etc etc etc

This slippage seems to happen rather a lot among people who believe in the International Political Correctness Conspiracy. It is never quite clear whether they think that while it may be offensive to call a gay man a poof, it shouldn't be illegal to do so; or that it isn't offensive to call a gay man a poof because the term isn't really all that insulting; or that it doesn't matter if the term is insulting because common sense (i.e my unexamined assumptions) tell me that I ought to hold gay men in contempt. Another version, particularly prevalent in the Nasty Mail, is to say that it may or may not be offensive to call a gay man a poof, but that no-one complains when gay men call straight men -- I don't know --"breeders" or something -- which shows that gay men have got the real power and straight people are the oppressed minority. And that it gives you cancer.

Finally, the disturbing Campaign Against Political Correctness -- the one initially set up by Laura Midgely and her husband to prevent homosexual frogs being given the same rights as heterosexual frogs -- appears to use the term Political Correctness primarily to mean "anti-racist legislation". In its section about "ridiculous" examples of Political Correctness it cites all the usual suspects: bakers shops selling "gingerbread people"; prison officers being asked to call inmates "Mr"; changes to the text of Enid Blyton's books. [5] But the examples of "dangerous" Political Correctness it cites are mainly examples of "positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" -- local councils trying to encourage black people to become police officers or fire fighters, or as the stories put it, "banning white people".

Many of these stories are drawn from the pages of the Nasty Mail and the Nasty Express. Some of them can be very easily debunked: the idea that anyone banned the display of England flags during the World Cup is just. not. true. Many of them contain quotes from concerned citizens. Well, from two concerned citizens, at least.

John Midgely of the Campaign for Politcal Correctness said "What is the world coming to when you are not allowed to put a bit of chocolate sauce on a cone."

John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, condemned the plans, saying people should be "proud to celebrate" Guy Fawkes night. "This idea is from the same school of thought that says you can't celebrate Christmas or call a chairman 'a chairman'. It undermines our traditions and way of life," he said." [6]

Laura Midgley, of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, added: "It is totally ridiculous political correctness, nobody wants to talk about gingerbread people. They are what they are. It is not just an innocent mistake. Whoever did it, I hope they will think long and hard about it. If these sorts of things go unchallenged, they become the norm." [7]

It would be very interesting to know what relationship the Campaign Against Political Correctness has with these newspapers. Do the Express phone up the Midgleys for a quote whenever they find a sensational breaking story about someone's biscuits being the wrong shape? Or do, perchance, some of these stories originate in press-releases that the CAPC has sent to the papers?

The site reproduces an essay by John Midgley which -- apart from one apocryphal reference to "person hole covers" -- is a rant against the McPherson report into institutional racism in the police force. Amongst the colourful metaphors ("According to the Commission for Racial Equality, there must be an all singing, all dancing plan that stretches like the tentacles of an octopus into all of the other plans, strategies and visions that the law dictates that your school must have")  the claim seems to be that McPherson involved the police, and therefore other institutions, in a lot of un-necessary paper-work and form-filling. For all I know this might be true. But where is the connection between "When the government tried to tackle institutional racism in the police force, they went about it in an unnecessarily bureaucratic way" and "I read in the Nasty Express that some bakers shops now sell biscuits called Gingerbread People"?

The website includes a breathtakingly nasty cartoon which suggests that qualified people are sometimes turned down for jobs because they are white, and "that this is a legal kind of racism, introduced by the politically correct, kind of like what existed during the Nazi era."

Kind of like what existed during the Nazi era.


[1] Not that anyone did try to stop us using terms like "black spot". Or if they did, they didn't try very hard. The 1992 currency crash is universally referred to as Black Wednesday; the day after Thanksgiving is commonly called Black Friday.

[2] He actually called him a "thick, lazy nigger", but one can't worry too much about facts when reading about conspiracy theories.

[3] Smacking has not been banned, although some people think that it should be. It is literally true that the last government removed the defence of "reasonable chastisement" when a parent was accused of cruelty, but this does not mean that it is now illegal to chastise your child reasonably. It means that the law itself now defines what is reasonable and what is unreasonable whereas it used to be decided by juries on a case-by-case basis. So if Mr The Awful Truth is right, then the problem is not that parents aren't allowed to hit their children, but that they aren't allowed to hit their children hard enough. What the law now bans is hitting with sticks, hitting hard enough to leave cuts and bruises, etc.

[4] It might possibly be that first and second generation immigrants are more likely to work in family businesses than people who have lived here for longer, but that doesn't imply a genetic link between the Indian sub-continent and retail. What percentage of Pakistanis do work in retail? What percentage of corner shops are run by Pakistanis? Are we dealing here with actual data, or merely with "common sense" (i.e my unexamined assumptions)?

[5]It seems perfectly sensible to remove unintentional double entendres from books which are going to be read out loud to children: what possible sinister political purpose is served by saying that the diminutives of Frances and Richard had better be Franny and Rick, as opposed to, er, Fanny and Dick? It is interesting to consider that if a modern day Mrs Whitehouse suggested that the lyrics of My Ding-A-Ling" sounded a bit rude or if a modern day Dr Bowdler produced an edition of Shakespeare that omitted the passages that a respectable father wouldn't want to read out in front of his children, they would be regarded, not as slightly silly old fashioned prudes, but as dangerous members of the Political Correctness Brigade bent on destroying the very cock jokes that made this country what it was today.

[6] Need it be said that the "now Bonfire night is banned" story was about one council which had decided to let off fireworks on Nov 5th, but not to have an actual bonfire? (Does anyone have a bonfire on Nov 5th? When we were kids, we called it "Firework Night".) This was partly due to health and safety concerns, and partly because bonfires are bad for the council's carbon footprint. The suggestion that it had something to do with not offending minorities seems to be pure spin.

[7] This is actually worth unpacking a bit. We used to say "policeman": we started to say "police person" because women as well as men can work for the police. We used to say "chairman"; we started to say "chair person" because women as well as men can run meetings. People then started to joke that we would have to say "Personchester": this is funny because the name "Manchester" comes from the Latin "Mamucium" and has nothing to do with men or women. It's a comic example of hyper-correction. Amusing hyper-correction may occasionally happen: there is a story that a US police force found itself referring to a road as an "Accident African-American Spot" or (even better) that someone described Nelson Mandela as "the first African-American president of South Africa." Anyone, then, might laugh at a Gingerbread Person: the sensible rule that you should say "fire-person" and "post-person" has been comically applied to a biscuit. However the Common Sense Brigade think that it's very serious -- not an innocent mistkae, but that sort of thing which must not be allowed to become the norm. And they think that calling a chairman a  "chair" or a "chairperson" undermines our way of life. Its the use of gender-netural language in general -- not this particularly silly example of it -- which is dangerous. The life-changing joke about gay frogs is in the same category: it's only funny if you already think that equal rights for gay humans is a dangerous, left wing, anti-common sense notion.