Blears to attack political correctness

[Albion 69]

"In a hard hitting speech, to be made in the last week of February, the Communities Secretary will suggest that the pendulum has "swung too far" in favour of not offending minorities.
Her remarks will be seen as a thinly veiled attack on Harriet Harman, the Commons leader, who has made a series of left wing speeches and announcements in recent months about equal rights for minorities.
Ms Harman has faced accusations of manoeuvring herself for the leadership if Labour loses the next election"

Hazel Blears to attack political correctness - Telegraph

Bloody cheek , Nu Lab spend a decade plus creating the environment to promote PC as accepted orthodoxy now they are in deep doo doo they say it has gone too far
The statements rowing back/abandoning previous policies come thick and fast as ministers jockey to succeed Brown , if any of them had an ounce of integrity they would resign their posts triggering a vote of confidence/General Election

[DTE]

I'm all for anything that hurts Harmon's chances of becoming Lab leader. That woman is seriously dangerous. She's like our version of Sarah Palin.

Its about time, because political correctness is about as useful a concept as an asian corner shop that doesn't open on Christmas day.

Am I allowed to say that?

[Midas]

Its about time, because political correctness is about as useful a concept as an asian corner shop that doesn't open on Christmas day.

Am I allowed to say that?

No, because it's excluding the minority of non-Asian shopkeepers who do the same thing

[LA]

Hazel Blears seems out of place. She seems to constantly criticise her own government...

[Baldilocks]

Hazel Blears has 'done it again' .. attacked political correctness, that is. In a different way .. and in a way that many other MP's have done, too .. but I think this is a fair charge to make, considering ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184626/Blears-faces-axe-Cabinet-Brown-dubs-tax-dodge-totally-unacceptable.html

Quote ...

Gordon Brown appears to have signalled Hazel Blears could be sacked over her expense claims.

Hours after branding her the way she avoided capital gains tax 'totally unacceptable', he vowed any minister who had not kept to high standards would go.

And when asked directly if the Communities Secretary would still be in the Cabinet after the next reshuffle, he merely said she was in her job 'at the moment'.

.. Then again ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8057559.stm

Quote ...

But the prime minister's official spokesman moved to dampen speculation she was about to be sacked, saying: "She's doing a good job".

He said Ms Blears had repaid the money and the prime minister respected that.

Perhaps the mixed messages Brown appears to have sent out could be cynically regarded as a form of 'political correctness' these days ?

[Johnno]

Political corectness of whole left wing really gets on my nerves. If i want to make jokes that are slightly racist or offensive to minorities i will because end of the day its a joke. There just seems to be a massive sense of humour failure that is inherent in all politicans personalities.

She's like our version of Sarah Palin

I wish we had our own version of Sarah Palin

[Opinionated]

Political correctness (which is defunct as a term anyway because it is applied to criticise things which are far from being remotely related to any attempt at inoffense) has outlived it's usefulness. What began as a well intentioned (if sometimes misguided) attempt to examine language and avoid causing offence has become a catch-all for stupidity masquerading as an attempt to be inclusive. It is no longer useful and we should stop using the term altogether. Especailly as it would make the lives of a dozen Mail journalists much harder.
Isn't Theresa May our version of a political MILF? Not that I can see it!

[Midas]

Political correctness (which is defunct as a term anyway because it is applied to criticise things which are far from being remotely related to any attempt at inoffense) has outlived it's usefulness. What began as a well intentioned (if sometimes misguided) attempt to examine language and avoid causing offence has become a catch-all for stupidity masquerading as an attempt to be inclusive. It is no longer useful and we should stop using the term altogether. Especailly as it would make the lives of a dozen Mail journalists much harder.
Isn't Theresa May our version of a political MILF? Not that I can see it!

It's not the term itself that's the problem, it's the 1,001 subjects which fall under the 'PC' banner which are the major problem; get rid of either the legislation or the customs surrounding those and we'd soon find that no-one bothered to use the phrase.

[LA]

I agree with Midas, not sure if he agrees with what I type next though.
I think all racist hatred, all political correct should be removed. All equal rights legislation should be crapped.

These laws cause ridiculous outcomes.

I have two examples:

If a black man comes to me and insults me for being white, he won't get done. If I use the same insult against him but replace white with black, I get done.

Thats absurd.

Another example is Golliwogg. I have never in my life seen a black person that looks like a Golliwogg. How black people can possibly be offended by this term I have no idea.

Whatever moron thought it should be banned deserves a trip to the guillotine.

[Baldilocks]

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that political correctness is itself nothing more or less than a means of exercising control ? And as such, is a particularly pernicious thing ??

Someone (usually the Left or 'hard' Left) dreams up a line that pushes the 'preferred' application of political correctness .. then refines it over time. The point of it, surely, is to get everyone to fall in line with a brand of thought or behaviour that is 'preferred' ?

This is taken to ridiculous extremes sometimes, as in Liberal Authoritarian's 'golliwog' example. But even with that example, surely there's more to it than meets the eye ?

Even in considering the example, how many people are going to mull over the reasons that ever became any sort of issue ? Won't it most likely get people to think about racial sensitivities .. AS EXAMPLES LIKE THIS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO ?

My point is that this very sensitivity prepares a social climate which is intended .. to control sensitivities according to a preferred direction. This in turn helps shape the way people think.

The more political correctness guides thought and opinion, so the less free we become as a people.

'Opinionated74' says ..

Political correctness (which is defunct as a term anyway because it is applied to criticise things which are far from being remotely related to any attempt at inoffense) has outlived it's usefulness.

I think that's far from true as a conclusion. What worries me is that people might not recognise examples of political correctness for what they are, because the mindset of the one judging the issue might have already been set by previous political correctness !!

I can't see political correctness being abandoned at all easily as a useful control strategy. But I CAN see that anyone exercising it would like everyone to think it HAD been ...

[Midas]

I agree with Midas, not sure if he agrees with what I type next though.
I think all racist hatred, all political correct should be removed. All equal rights legislation should be crapped.

These laws cause ridiculous outcomes......

Love the typo there LA But yes, I do agree with you, under a charter of human rights all people regardless of sex, race or religion should be treated as absolute equals under the law. As you say, conferring 'special rights' on one group does little but to give them cause to think they're special in some respects and cause aggravation for everyone else. There's plenty of other legislation which can quite adequately deal with cases of blatant discrimination under any particular set of circumstances.

[LA]

I have always been curious about socialists on this topic. They always tell me we need these laws to protect people from racial/age/gender discrimination. But surely, that goes against the socialist view that all people are good?

[Marxist Nutter]

I have always been curious about socialists on this topic. They always tell me we need these laws to protect people from racial/age/gender discrimination. But surely, that goes against the socialist view that all people are good?

Since when has socialism = all people are good?
Coz I've always thought that part of socialism is middle class class people should be shot in the revolution!

[Opinionated]

I have always been curious about socialists on this topic. They always tell me we need these laws to protect people from racial/age/gender discrimination. But surely, that goes against the socialist view that all people are good?

You think all socialists believe that everyone is good? Rather simplistic, I should say more that everyone starts off good and has the same potential to do good given equality. The left who defend such legislation do so in a belief that legislation can counterbalance inherent inequality in our system which results in a disadvantage for minority groups. As you point out the problem arises when the previously favoured start to perceive the balance tipping too far the other way. I agree that a good place to start is to scrap all previous legislation, but I would replace it with a codified bill of rights to protect everyone equally.

[LA]

The socialists I have met always tell me people are good, but socialisation makes them bad. Surely then, legislation like this is socialisation?

but I would replace it with a codified bill of rights to protect everyone equally.

In our system you cannot have a codified bill of rights due to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty

[Marxist Nutter]

The socialists I have met always tell me people are good, but socialisation makes them bad. Surely then, legislation like this is socialisation?

This is another example of being overly simplistic.

I'd perhaps say that socialization operates at the level that actually determines what good and bad mean and also that it is most likely impossible to think of anything that is 'pre' or 'prior' to socialization and so there is not much point worrying about it.

[Opinionated]

Since when has socialism = all people are good?
Coz I've always thought that part of socialism is middle class class people should be shot in the revolution!

Well I wouldn't go that far, but there is a tendency for certain people to placate their bourgois consciences with lip service to socialist ideals which can then get watered down and sanitised. Yes I am aware of the irony of my criticising a position I take myself.

[JacquesMagique]

In our system you cannot have a codified bill of rights due to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty

then perhaps the system should be changed?

[LA]

then perhaps the system should be changed?

If we get a codified constitution it means parliament will not be sovereign, Judges can overrule Parliament, We would have an inflexible constitution.

I personally think we should keep the system as it is. If you passed a Bill of Rights Law, no Government in their right mind would remove it. The effects of doing so would be severely damaging.

So though it isn't legally entrenched, it would be politically entrenched.

[JacquesMagique]

If we get a codified constitution it means parliament will not be sovereign, Judges can overrule Parliament, We would have an inflexible constitution.

I personally think we should keep the system as it is. If you passed a Bill of Rights Law, no Government in their right mind would remove it. The effects of doing so would be severely damaging.

So though it isn't legally entrenched, it would be politically entrenched.

Like in the US right?

I see where you are coming from although I wonder if a more prominent judiciary would be a good check of power against parliament. They do have a lot of probelms with legislation because of their constitution though dont they i guess.

[Opinionated]

If we get a codified constitution it means parliament will not be sovereign, Judges can overrule Parliament, We would have an inflexible constitution.

I personally think we should keep the system as it is. If you passed a Bill of Rights Law, no Government in their right mind would remove it. The effects of doing so would be severely damaging.

So though it isn't legally entrenched, it would be politically entrenched.

Well, yes that's the whole point. As it would have meant that most of Nulabs anti-terrorist nonsense would have contravined our legally protected rights I for one would be most happy to sacrifice the flexibility of our system. We do increasingly need protection from our own government.

[LA]

Yes Opinionated, however, it gives further legislative powers to the judiciary. Though I don't agree with NuLabour at all, they were elected.

If we were to have a constitution, the judges in the Supreme Court (which can remove legislation) would also have to be elected. That opens the system open to huge abuse and corruption.

The current system is fine. All people need to do is learn from history and not vote Labour.

[Opinionated]

Yes Opinionated, however, it gives further legislative powers to the judiciary. Though I don't agree with NuLabour at all, they were elected.

It does and obviously you'd have to have the legal framework ratified by the electorate somehow and build in very clear divisions between legislature and judiciary.

If we were to have a constitution, the judges in the Supreme Court (which can remove legislation) would also have to be elected. That opens the system open to huge abuse and corruption.

Why couldn't they be nominated as in USA and confirmed by Lords or something?

The current system is fine. All people need to do is learn from history and not vote Labour.

It was Thatcher who got rid of our right to silence LA! Like the idea or not, I cannot think of a more practical solution to protect us from governments to come who most likely will continue to erode our freedom in the name of security.

[LA]

Why couldn't they be nominated as in USA and confirmed by Lords or something?

Still open to abuse and corruption

It was Thatcher who got rid of our right to silence LA! Like the idea or not, I cannot think of a more practical solution to protect us from governments to come who most likely will continue to erode our freedom in the name of security

The system is fine. The best way to protect our freedoms and liberties is to weaken the power of the Prime Minister.

But in my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system.

The best way is to roll back time in terms of freedom/civil liberties laws. Before the human rights act and various pieces of legislation like it, British people had no defined freedoms or liberties.

Simply, we had all the freedoms we wanted unless there is a law against it. In retrospect, we had more freedom back then. That is the time we need to return to.

[Midas]

Still open to abuse and corruption

And the present system isn't?

The system is fine. The best way to protect our freedoms and liberties is to weaken the power of the Prime Minister.

But in my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system.

No LA, O74 is quite right in what she says, we do need a mechanism in place to protect the British people from the excesses of government.

The best way is to roll back time in terms of freedom/civil liberties laws. Before the human rights act and various pieces of legislation like it, British people had no defined freedoms or liberties.

Simply, we had all the freedoms we wanted unless there is a law against it. In retrospect, we had more freedom back then. That is the time we need to return to.

That I would agree with, there's far too much legislation which affects our rights and freedoms in virtually every respect, some of it admittedly enacted with the best of intent, but unfortunately by people who either didn't see the consequences of their actions or somehow thought that we wouldn't either.

[LA]

And the present system isn't?

There is very little corruption in our current judicial system.

No LA, O74 is quite right in what she says, we do need a mechanism in place to protect the British people from the excesses of government.

In your opinion she is correct. I don't think that "mechanism" is really necessary given my comment about removing legislation.

If a mechanism is required, merely give people the right to call an initiative.
You can have these on national and regional levels.

[CAGAN]

"In a hard hitting speech, to be made in the last week of February, the Communities Secretary will suggest that the pendulum has "swung too far" in favour of not offending minorities.
Her remarks will be seen as a thinly veiled attack on Harriet Harman, the Commons leader, who has made a series of left wing speeches and announcements in recent months about equal rights for minorities.
Ms Harman has faced accusations of manoeuvring herself for the leadership if Labour loses the next election"

Hazel Blears to attack political correctness - Telegraph

Bloody cheek , Nu Lab spend a decade plus creating the environment to promote PC as accepted orthodoxy now they are in deep doo doo they say it has gone too far
The statements rowing back/abandoning previous policies come thick and fast as ministers jockey to succeed Brown , if any of them had an ounce of integrity they would resign their posts triggering a vote of confidence/General Election

I despise people that are NOT politically correct and appreciate the oppressed minorities. But not as much as I hate gays and foreigners.

[Jasonarga]

The House of Commons' very first public revelation of the professional finances of its MPs appears to show that British Asian MPs have more of a habit of living as to the manor born.One Lawmaker has claimed 30,000 Pounds for gardening expenses. What a scandal.

Lawsuit Finance

[enginetorque]

I can't decide whether to love or hate Hazel - she is 'a bit of a one' isn't she !