By Kathy Martin…
Written January 2015
This part of my ramble is, in fact a rant about “racism” and “political correctness” in the UK, well, Wales to be completely accurate.
People who know me will appreciate that I not only despise racism, but also despise “political correctness” for political correctness’s sake!
Apparently a Welsh international rugby player, full back Liam Williams, donned a wig, “blacked up” so that he resembled an Ivory Coast footballer Wilfried Bony, (who plays for the Welsh football Club Swansea City) and, along with some friends dressed in various costumes, posed for a photograph, which was posted on Twitter.
According to Liam Williams this (intended to be) humorous act was done with the full knowledge and consent of Wilfried Bony, so no harm was done!
Excellent, super, great!
However, the “politically correct anti-racism Police” shows up in the form of Sunil Patel of the Show Racism the Red Card and Weyman Bennett of Unite Against Fascism!
Mr Patel states that he cannot comment on whether Wilfried Bony is “fine” with it, but he further states that he is “sure” that many black people would not be fine with it!
What gives this bigoted, and by his comments, racist person the right to presume what other people (of whatever skin colour) would or would not be “fine” with?
Admittedly Weyman Bennett of Unite against Fascism doesn’t say that “blacking up” is fascist, just racist, but lighten up, people, the world is a sad enough place without humour!
How long will it be before someone, in the interests of being “politically correct” insists that Sir Richard Branson’s staff have to undergo a medical examination before they can wear a uniform with the word “Virgin” emblazoned on it?
As we in Kibris have recently had a dusting of snow on our mountains, another thought has come into my mind. All snowmen, depicted on Christmas cards etc, are “white”!
Why haven’t “black” activists demanded representation of “black” snowmen?
On Wednesday 7th January there was a horrific attack and massacre of 12 people at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. The perpetrators are reported as being “Muslim/Islamic” fanatics. Yes, they may have been (by their own lights) devout Muslims or simply used their upbringing or background as an excuse, as an attempt to “justify” their actions.
We, as well as all our friends, including a couple of our (Pakistani) Muslim friends and acquaintances here (who peacefully go about their lives following their interpretations of the teachings in the Noble Qur’an) say that they too are outraged at this event.
When I suggested that the description “Muslim or Islamic” was being used similar to word “football” in describing football hooligans a few decades ago they looked at me blankly!
I explained that those hooligans were a small minority of people who used football matches as an excuse (rather than a reason) to go on a violent rampage. At this they smiled and we all agreed that, as in most situations, it is always a small, yet violent or vocal, minority that spoil events or bring an organisation into disrepute.
I, like millions, no, billions of people around the world, had never even heard of the magazine “Charlie Hebdo” before news about this atrocious event was broadcast.
Now its existence is known throughout the world! Apparently it is a rude, crude, tasteless magazine that parodies most politics, politicians, religions and religious readers.
Had I lived in Paris (or anywhere near a newsagent who stocked it) I may, or may not, have bought one issue.
If I didn’t like the content I wouldn’t have bought another copy.
How about this folks (especially if any of my readers are fanatics), if a product isn’t bought it goes out of business!
Instead, the circulation of “Charlie Hebdo” has increased, certainly in the short term, tremendously!
I am not an expert on French law, but I remember some time back when the Duchess of Cambridge was “snapped” when she was sun-bathing topless at a French villa. Although, I took little interest in the news article, because the British royal family took umbrage, I think that both the photographer and the publisher were threatened with all sorts of punitive measures. Perhaps a law suit initiated by the “Islamic fanatics” would have been more successful and longer lasting?
I recently had the pleasure (?), OK, the opportunity to read two issues of the UK newspaper, the “Daily Mail”.
In one article on Monday 12th January, the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, refused to deny that he said that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS (National Health Service), only that he didn’t remember if he had used that phrase. He said that he pledged to fight for the NHS, and the fight (presumably in the forthcoming election) would not be about the words that he used.
A couple of puzzling questions sprang to my little brain.
- Firstly, the word “weaponise”, which, (like me), my spell check didn’t recognise! To me the word meant, as it still does, to provide someone with weapons, be they small-arms or nuclear!
- Secondly, and perhaps more pertinent and worrying to the BBC television licence fee payers in the United Kingdom, this denial was made on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show, not once but seven times!
I have never heard/watched the Andrew Marr show, but if he repeated the same question seven times then I have serious doubts about his intelligence.
If he has to ask the same question seven times and get the same reply each time, is he an idiot (although presumably a highly paid one) with a very short attention span?
I think that anyone with an IQ over 30, (which I believe is that of the average dog), would have realised that after the 2nd, or certainly the 3rd denial, the interviewee would continue to give the same reply to the same question!
Or did he assume that his listeners/viewers were the ones with short attention spans?
The other “Daily Mail” that came into my possession was that of Wednesday, 14th January 2015.
In one of the articles it was reported that Britain’s Oxford University Press (OUP) has decided not to print any more books; which refer to or mention the words “pigs”, “sausages” etc. This decision was, apparently, taken because their books are sold in 150 countries throughout the world, and Muslims or Jews may be upset at any reference to “pork”!
Sausages can (and are) also made using lamb, beef and vegetables, not just pork! Indeed, in my English/Turkish dictionary, the language of Turkey (a very large Muslim country) has three words for “sausage”:- sucuk, salam and sosis. So if the Turkish nationality is happy with the word and product, why ban it?
As I know that the New Testament of the Holy Bible contains the parable of the prodigal son, who became a swineherd, I wondered if the OUP also printed the Bible. I found out that, in addition to an electronic product, the OUP also prints (along with other versions) the Scofield Reference Bible, below is an extract from Wikipedia
The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield, which popularized dispensationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. Published by Oxford University Press and containing the entire text of the traditional, Protestant King James Version
Note that is (not was) widely circulated and [is] Published by Oxford University Press and containing the entire text of the traditional, Protestant King James Version.
Assuming that the OUP continues across the board to carry out its policy of not offending Jews or Muslims by ceasing to publish books which mention pigs (swine) will it stop printing the Holy Bible despite the certainty that this will offend Christians?
Just a thought!
Seriously, as I said about the Charlie Hebdo magazine, if you don’t like the product, don’t buy it! Simple!
Even more seriously, this censorship, for that is what it is, albeit “voluntary”, is a self inflicted, yet severe blow against free speech, free thinking and religious tolerance and freedom in a country that is officially “Christian”!
If the OUP has adopted this policy as a knee-jerk reaction to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, then the Islamist radicals have already scored at least one victory!
We have started to watch recordings of BBC2’s four part series called “Empire Warriors”. These episodes contain archive footage and interviews of people who were present when “natives” wanted to be in control of their own countries, when their countries were members of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
The natives who wanted (and succeeded) in overthrowing the minority governments of the colonial occupying power (Britain) were originally labelled as “terrorists”.
However, in the mid 1960’s, when Rhodesia, which was a (self-governing) British colony, declared independence from the Commonwealth, the people who tried to overthrow the minority government there were labelled as “freedom fighters”, not “terrorists”!
