Racism isn't the problem....PC is the problem

Where do you begin on something like this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996235/At-man-dares-tell-truth-race-Ex-race-tsar-says-silencing-debate-devastating-harm-Britain.html

Yeah...

Up here, we're dealing with our UKIP MEP (shockingly) making racist comments about one of our MSPs.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31886415

And of course, you've got all these folks just trying to play it off as 'just banter,' 'just normal politics, he's got to get a thicker skin,' 'well, it was in bad taste, but not racist, because he didn't actually call him a p***, after all.'  

Those are just the comments I'll repeat; there was some idiot woman phoning in on the radio this morning, who just made my skin crawl.  

I honestly can't decide whether people who spout this kind of nonsense are honestly so dim that they can't understand the difference-- like, maybe the nuances of language & meaning just go over their heads-- or if they know damned well, and don't care.

Regarding the Trevor Phillips bit, it's not that he doesn't have a valid point, or two.  It's just that the usual suspects are going to jump over each other to misrepresent it.

I think it's also tied in with a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Free Speech.'  People can't seem to understand that there is-- or should be-- a big difference between 'legal' and 'acceptable.' 

From the article you attached:

David Coburn is alleged to have said: "Humza Yousaf, or as I call him, Abu Hamza".

And then UKIP's explanation:

A UKIP spokesman denied the comparison had been made and said it was a "slip of the tongue" on Mr Coburn's part.

Slip of the tongue?

And then UKIP's explanation:

A UKIP spokesman denied the comparison had been made and said it was a "slip of the tongue" on Mr Coburn's part.

Slip of the tongue?

Oh, they've had half a dozen different 'explanations.'  First it was just a joke-- but in very poor taste, and he regrets it, and anyway, he thought it was off the record.  I think, briefly, they were flat-out denying that's what he'd said.  Then it was, 'oh, c'mon, can't he take a joke?'  Now it's a slip of the tongue-- haven't you ever got someone's name wrong? 

I think it's also tied in with a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Free Speech.'  People can't seem to understand that there is-- or should be-- a big difference between 'legal' and 'acceptable.' 

This is a point that I always try to stress!!!  Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak your mind without fear of unjust persecution.  You don't have to worry about having your tongue cut out for having a differing opinion.  It is NOT freedom from all consequences! 

This is a point that I always try to stress!!!  Freedom of Speech is the freedom to speak your mind without fear of unjust persecution.  You don't have to worry about having your tongue cut out for having a differing opinion.  It is NOT freedom from all consequences! 

It also goes both ways, the people who disagree (so-called "PC police") also have Freedom of Speech.

Yes, but the thing is, if you look at Phillips' statement about halfway down his article along the lines of, "Not all Jewish people are wealthy...but they seem to accumulate wealth, we can learn from them.."

Now he had just been saying that Afro Caribbean people seem to kill more than other people so I suppose he is bringing up how addressing race can be a "positive" - we can learn good things about money management from Jewish people as well as address the negatives associated with Afro Caribbean violence...

These statements are based on bigotry, because these "racial traits" are only apparent if you set them up in a racial context. Why not frame the question, "Let's look at the financial situations of immigrants from 1934 to 1939." You will, I think, find quite a few Jewish people in that group, and if you look at these Jewish people you will probably find that they were educated/skilled and had a bit of money....because the Jewish intelligentsia was targeted early...and crucially were the ones who could escape as they had a bit of money and qualifications that made them palatable to the UK immigration system.

The first major wave of Afro Caribbean immigration arrived post war and were basically recruited here as cheap labour to fill certain shortage roles caused by the conflict.

To make some sort of racially based analysis sets up the "discussion" on faulty grounds. Phillips should know this. I am not sure about his freedom of speech. I would have the same problems with the argument, "Let's examine how the flatness of the Earth has benefited seed propagation."

If "this discussion needs to be held" it can't be framed incorrectly from the get go. And it always starts from a racial stance instead of a serious look at why perhaps pockets of poverty exist.

It also goes both ways, the people who disagree (so-called "PC police") also have Freedom of Speech.

They have a right to say it.  They don't have a right to be listened to, or to not be thought of as a complete idiot (&/or ar*ehole) for saying it.

People, by their existence, deserve a basic level of respect.  Ideas have to earn respect.

When someone starts spouting ignorant, racist nonsense, I still have to respect them as a human being.  I can't just punch them in the nose, however much I'd like to.  I shouldn't be able to phone the police and have them arrested for 'hate speech' or other thought crime.  Even if it were possible, it would be unethical to use my mind-control ray to bend them to my way of thinking.  I have to respect them, as a human being.

What I don't have to do, is stand there in awkward silence, waiting for them to finish.  I can tell them they're being ridiculous.  I can tell them they're an ignorant racist.   I can tell them, 'If that's what you think, I'm no longer doing business with you.'  I can encourage other people to do the same.  I can walk away, and 'unfriend' them, and refuse to have them in my life.

If they want to have a public meeting/rally/protest to air their views, I can't (and shouldn't) stop them, no matter how awful I think they are.  But I can most certainly hold a counter-protest.  I can't (and shouldn't) deny them access to a public space, provided that the same access is given to all groups.  But if they're using a private/commercial venue (or, indeed, writing a newspaper column, appearing on talk shows, running a website w/ advertisers, etc.), then I have every right to make my views known, and to boycott the businesses that offer that venue.

These statements are based on bigotry, because these "racial traits" are only apparent if you set them up in a racial context...

If "this discussion needs to be held" it can't be framed incorrectly from the get go. And it always starts from a racial stance instead of a serious look at why perhaps pockets of poverty exist.

Thank you so much for expressing this so clearly!  You've hit the nail on the head.

But if they're using a private/commercial venue (or, indeed, writing a newspaper column, appearing on talk shows, running a website w/ advertisers, etc.), then I have every right to make my views known, and to boycott the businesses that offer that venue.

This is simultaneously my favorite and most infuriating misunderstanding of free speech. I don't know how many times I've seen some troll post racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/general abuse on a forum or website comment section, get banned for it, and come back with a new name wailing about free speech violations. Because Einstein hasn't realised that the Beastie Boys message board or Jezebel dot com aren't the US government.

Don't know whether to laugh or smack my head against the wall!