|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
Define "Political Correctness"
A story this week is notable not just because of my offered "definition" of "Political Correctness", but for some interesting commentary it brought. First, the story:
Weekly Weird News
U.K. P.C. III
During her lunch hour, Jane Edwards, a doctor in Sheffield, England, stopped at the Post Office to renew her daughter's passport since the family was planning a trip to France. Nothing doing, she was told: 5-year-old Heather was wearing a sleeveless dress, and her resulting exposed skin "might prove unacceptable" if the girl went to a Muslim country. "I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected," Edwards fumed. "It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness." A spokesman for the U.K. Passport Service said he was not aware of any rules against girls showing skin in passport photos. (London Daily Mail) ...Political Correctness: a system of thinking where it's OK to offend someone right in front of you by enforcing a made-up rule to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.
The story was brought to my attention by Peter in the U.K. -- I hadn't spotted it myself. When he sent me the URL he wrote:
I'm humanist/agnostic going on atheist myself; but I feel that people should be able to follow their religions, as long as they don't try to make others do so too. This seems wrong to me.
And it seems quite wrong to me, too. I'm running Peter's comment for a different reason, though: so many religious people, especially those who are not secure in their faith, tend to complain that I'm "anti-religion" (or "anti-Christian"). Not so, of course; I simply feel that in addition to pointing out the foibles of cops, postal workers, love-sick women, restauranteurs, criminals (and, of course, my favorites: politicians), it's also fair game to point out the foibles of the religious, especially those who are not walking their talk.
The point? Here's a guy who's "agnostic going on atheist". If he said something like that in, say, a high-circulation online publication, people would accuse him of being "anti-religious". He's nothing of the sort. Just because he rejects religion for himself doesn't say a thing about what he thinks the rights of others should be. So much so that he's deeply disturbed when he sees someone's religious rights trampled. And so should we all. Like Peter, I'm not "anti-religious", I'm pro freedom of religion -- all of it, not just the portion some people like. And that includes people like Peter, who don't want religion forced upon them. That should not be difficult to understand, yet I've had to fight that battle again and again. With luck, this sheds a bit more light on the subject. This is discussed more on my religious freedom page (among other spots, up to including the spinoff Get Out of Hell Free site!)
September 4 Update
A thought-provoking note from Denis in Ontario, Canada, who emigrated from the U.K., in reaction to my "new definition":
I cannot remember quite how I stumbled or perhaps I was pushed into receiving your weekly offerings, some months ago, but do know I am always highly amused although somewhat saddened by the weekly fare you place before us. Ever prepared to accept the consequences of my actions and words, I have long set about deliberately upsetting members of the P.C. brigade: the Holier Than Thou promoters and all the other Bigots with which this world is seemingly filled. During my lifetime and being of an age that knows no boundaries (closing in on 80), I have seen many changes and experienced many events which only go to reinforce my thinking about some who write you -- mentally challenged folks. Who else would write you with such petty, ill-thought-out and ill-considered, complaints? Deep thought, rationale and logic certainly appear to be alien to many such as these, for they are fast vanishing, as evidenced by their writings. Far too many would seem to be lacking a degree of common sense, a trait so much a rarity in today's world.My sole reason for writing you -- I felt an obligation on my part -- was to offer you my heartfelt support and thanks for the little light you throw upon the stupidities of my fellow man. Keep up the good work my Friend. I'm most honoured to have found your site and again, I am really most appreciative of my weekly portion/potion of "belly" laughs.
Well, Denis, sure enough, last week I received another perhaps ill-advised complaint, again about story in my archive -- from 1995. The lawyer (!) involved in the story is upset that when someone Googles her name, the story in True comes up first (of 365,000 hits), which she finds "offensive and just plain wrong". As with the previous complaint I've posted her letter, and replied to it, with the story on the story's archive page.
What did I do to make this story come up first in Google? Nothing -- and I had no idea it did until she pointed it out. There's plenty she can do, however, to make her own page (about herself, or one that has her side of the story I wrote about) beat it handily. Yet rather than do that, she seems to think it's a better use of her time to write and complain to me about it. I wouldn't call that "mentally challenged", but I do think it's pretty dumb. And hey: isn't people doing dumb things, even if they're normally smart, essentially what most of True's stories are about? So once again, an ill-advised complaint becomes part of True's core content.
RSS
6 Comments on This Entry
All comments in this blog are reviewed prior to being published. Spammers: don't waste your time. The posting criteria are simple: if a comment is worth visitors' time to read, it's approved. If not, it's not.
Posted by nic, usa on August 4, 2008:
actually a baseless argument (to an extent), for muslims a 5 y/o can dress like any other 5 y/o w/ sleeveless dress and short short skirt showing legs -- all that comes stuff comes at puberty.
now otoh, some strict muslims might have an issue with pictures...so how do you handle that, uk passport office.
---
No one said anyone gave any thought to this idea! Clearly they didn't. -rc
Posted by Greg in Seattle on August 4, 2008:
Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts.
Now, if the British government has a mandate wherein passports must meet certain guidelines so that all countries will accept a British passport, then this is not quite as blindly PC as one might think. It's a policy to ensure that no one rejects a British passport out of hand. It's for maximum usability.
But passports have silly rules in general. I once was told some countries require you to smile in your passport photo because they don't want foreigners to think their people are unhappy.
But now, in the wake of September 11th, multiple countries have enacted rules that prohibit various forms of smiling in passport photos. I kid you not. Apparently, though, in the UK, babies under 1 year old are allowed to smile (or even sleep) in their photos.
Posted by Joe, New York on August 9, 2008:
Here's my favorite definition of PC:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Posted by Mark, Prescott, AZ on August 9, 2008:
There are lots of ways to express an anti-religious bias. If your criticism was balanced in both directions, it would be understandable. There are many opportunities to criticize religious bigots that you do not take. Charles Dawkin's book is so unbalanced, other atheists have criticized it, and there are many people who are of Dawkin's mindset, so there should be plenty of fodder to expose intolerance on the other side.
Mark (a Zoroastrian)
---
My purpose isn't to equally criticize every possible permutation of belief, but rather to entertain -- and provoke thought and discussion. I don't know what Dawkin has to do with anything, as he isn't discussed on this page, which is not here to discuss religion, but rather the ridiculous depths of political correctness. -rc
Posted by Colin, Mancester on August 11, 2008:
Greg in Seattle wrote, "Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts."
There is a great difference between that request and the UK's passport. In his sister's case, she was entering areas where it was known for certain that religious people who frequent these locations would be offended by 'immodest' dress. In such a case, the request is reasonable and compliance a matter of courtesy.
The UK passport situation differs. There the concern is that one "might travel" to where somebody "might be offended". This is where PC kicks in. It has nothing to do with real events. Instead it seeks to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.
Posted by Jon, UK on August 11, 2008:
Hey, Mark, is that Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins you're criticising? In case of doubt: the first had a beard and is dead; the second didn't and isn't.