Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Rational discource? Hardly

I have only to repeat the words of Cranmer, for they express precisely what I have on my mind.

13th Spitfire really does not know what to discuss today.

If he turns to immigration, he is racist.

If he queries issues of European Union, he is xenophobic.

If he expresses an opinion on the case of Philip Lardner, he is homophobic.

If he questions the Pope, he is a bigot.

If he expresses concerns over aspects of Islam, he is Islamophobic.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered.

What do you call a liberal democracy which prohibits rational discourse?


JohnofEnfield said...

And who started this technique of smearing every one who disagrees with them?

New Labour.

They are the greatest threat to democracy since Hitler.

13th Spitfire said...

I quite agree John. But we can fight it very simply, I have am doing it outside the blogosphere.

Talk regularly about the tough issues and do not let anyone call you a racist. I regularly express my opinion on immigration, that it is too high, sometimes I get a racist label. Ask the labeller exactly what 'racist' means and they will go red in the face for having uttered a word which they did not know what it meant, simply repeated social convention.

Fuck social convention, free speech is your right. If you someone attacks your person attack them and do not ever bulge.

mark said...

It's not just a new labour thing as the thought police have gained ground in Nth America and down-under but perhaps to a much lesser extent.

As a new zealander who has spent a few years living in london (i'm back home now) it was shocking to me the stranglehold of the thought-police.

New Zealand is still a far far freerer place in terms of what you can publically say and do without fear of being arrested or sacked (NZ newspapers printed the mohammed cartoons but there are hundreds of other examples as well).

The following two things would go some way to restoring or preserving free speech in the UK:

1. The BBC has to be broken up and privatised. This is an absolute must. Between the TV news and radio news the BBC largely determines whether something is a story and how long it hangs in the news. If the BBC had dropped the 'shilpa shetty' incident or decided it was unimportant it would have died. The BBC is good at some things but the people who work there by-and-large share a socially liberal outlook that is ready to ruthlessly stamp on any comment or action which suggest that a person may not hold correct thoughts.

2. Prosperous talk-back radio - compared to say the US or NZ talk-back radio in the UK is positively tame and self-censored. Talk-back radio is one way where different voices can reach out to a wide audience. It is popular but it needs to be in the private sector & private sector radio can't compete against state funded BBC radio.