Yesterday I read an article in the Spectator Blogs which raises several very interesting issues. Not least the small matter of being able to speak the truth as you see it on a wide range of issues. This is something that seems to be taking over and stifling many discussions. There are certain subjects which seem to have become "taboo", utterly off limits no matter how serious, lest one wishes to be crucified, hung drawn and quartered figuratively speaking, by the politically correct lobbies.
Rod Liddle's article in the Spectator Blog yesterday highlights the case of the Attorney General, now being crucified by the guardians of political correctness in the media and politics, for answering a question put by an interviewer when he talked about corruption being brought into Britain by certain immigrant minority groups. The interviewer asked a direct question and got a straight answer. Cue the outraged denials, condemnations and demands for his head on a platter. As Rod Liddle points out, the AG isn't saying anything that is not true, however inconvenient it might be, and however unpalatable to the defenders of multi-culty and political correctness. It is not "racist" to point out that a particular group in society is responsible for more of any sort of problem than anyone else. Yet this is exactly what happens as soon as something arises involving a particular group, culture, faith or community.
These same guardians of political correctness have no problem, however, when one of their "protected" groups denigrates anything about British culture, whips up recruits to go and fight a jihad somewhere, burns poppies on Remembrance Day or anything else offensive to the majority of the population. That is OK in their twisted view, offending the minority is not.
So Mr Grieve stated that, when he spoke of voter fraud and corruption in the ballot box, he had in mind certain sections of the Pakistani community. Fact: there have been two major investigations of alleged voting shenanigans in two constituencies involving the Pakistani community. OK, so neither actually led to criminal charges, what they did do, was turn up a lot of unsavoury practices. Like massive abuse of Postal Votes; like women being ordered to vote a certain way by male members of the family and much more. Have any of these been addressed? Is he committing a crime in actually citing, as the basis of his answer, the Report of the Electoral Commission, which highlighted both the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities as being more likely to adopt "inappropriate" activities in elections? No. But he is inconveniencing the PC guardians who are desperately trying to sweep this under the carpet rather than discuss this and other issues. One can guess why.
However, this is part of something insidious in the "Politically Correct" agenda. By imposing punitive sanctions on anyone who dares to break the rules on anything deemed "offensive" by some "guardian" of PC, one strangles debate. Eventually, as in the scenario in the book 1984, lies become truth, no one dares discuss anything lest they be 'reported' to the authorities and sent for "re-education". In short, when I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is.
Most of the terminally Politically Correct I have met are, at heart, bullies. They have power, usually taken without consent, and they plan to use it to the fullest extent to make sure you toe the line. While most of those I have encountered would furiously deny this, they are employing exactly the same methods used by Hitler's supporters to enslave the majority of Germans. A creeping introduction of subjects that it was "taboo" to discuss or challenge led, eventually, to total control of the population. We are witnessing the same insidious process today in almost every aspect of public and personal life. One does not know who may take something you might have said and blow it totally out of proportion.
People have lost their jobs thanks to this, even when the supposedly "non-PC" statement had nothing whatever to do with their work or workplace. Others have had their careers blocked or sidelined through it. One entire Group, a charitable group formed to support the work of their local hospital, were told to get rid of their Chairman or lose the right to use any council owned property because the Chairman (a well known lady of undoubted reputation) was accused of racism by an hysterical trouble maker who, it subsequently emerged, only attended such gatherings to "police" them for "offensive and racist attitudes". A RNLI station based in the Severn estuary, and very actively engaged in that area (it is a very busy station) was denied Heritage Lottery funding for some much needed improvements to its base - because they weren't "inclusive" enough and served only an "elitist" group.
Why do we, a people who believe we live in a Parliamentary Democracy elected by the "majority" to govern, accept these dictates from a minority among us. I have the misfortune to know several people who found, when they tried to seek their homes in certain cities where the "slandered" ethnic group have come to be dominant, who found themselves eventually forced to seek at way below market value to someone from the chosen "ethnic group". The mechanism is simple, you list your house with an Agent, the Agent advertises it. You may get one or two "interested" visitors, and then, mysteriously, nothing. Next you get a visit from someone insisting they are interested, but offering a lower price and refusing to work through the Agent. That is followed by "negotiations" which lead nowhere. When, eventually, you are worn down (some agents even tell you outright you're unlikely to get a buyer at this point), and you approach the "interested" party to accept the offer - it is suddenly much, much lower. Take it or leave it.
OK, so the PC element don't count this as "corruption", but if it isn't, it is certainly extremely close to criminal.
Corruption is present in every society, sometimes it is so subtle it passes unnoticed. My concern is that if we are not to be allowed to point it out, and not allowed to identify who or what is responsible, how can we ever hope to deal with any of these problems. It matters not what the subject is, the entire problem with the imposition of Political Correctness is that it prevents resolution of any problem. The second and bigger problem is that it eventually allows a repressive and possible evil ideology to take hold uncontested and unchallengeable. Unless there is balance in discussion we will never resolve any of these issues. The real truth here is that Political Correctness is the single most dangerous ideology in the western world today. It is strangling freedom of speech, it is suppressing truth, concealing corruption and damaging democracy.
It is time to throw Political Correctness into the trash box and tell it's Stasi-like purveyors where the exits are.