How PC is Putting Us All at Risk

Political Correctness is certainly annoying, foolish and a pain in the neck. However, it can also be quite dangerous, especially when it is applied to issues of national security, policing and justice. In the attempt of our elites to make sure we do not offend anyone, ordinary citizens can find themselves in positions of real danger.

Consider a recent news item about the effort to turn all of our leaders – including the police – into politically correct lackies, regardless of the harmful consequences. Here is how an Age article describes this situation:

“A guidebook for politicians, police and public servants on how to talk about Muslims and terrorism without implicating the religion of Islam should be released by the end of the year. The book, A Lexicon on Terror, was conceived by Victoria Police and the Australian Multicultural Foundation, but was so popular it became a national project, an international conference on Islamophobia at Monash University heard yesterday.”

The article continues, “Multicultural Foundation head Hass Dellal told The Age many Muslims interpreted ‘war on terror’ as a war on Islam. Other terms to be avoided included ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘Islamo-fascists’, ‘Middle Eastern appearance’, and ‘moderate Muslim’, which suggested to Muslims they were inadequate in their faith.”

While seeking to help different groups get along in order to achieve a harmonious society may be praiseworthy, there are at least three big problems with all of this. First, this attempt at PC simply denies reality. The sad truth is, the overwhelming majority of the acts of terrorism which we read about on a regular basis, including last week’s attacks on two hotels in Jakarta, are committed by Muslims.

No amount of PC can deny the truth that there is a war against the West taking place, and that this comes primarily from those who call themselves Muslim. From the September 11 attacks to the Bali bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the London underground attacks, the Mumbai terrorist attack, and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, to name just a few, what we have is violence done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

To ignore or seek to downplay the source of these attacks does nothing except benefit those who are carrying them out – Muslims. When we are faced with mortal danger, the first step in self defence is to know who the enemy is. Sure, not all Muslims approve of such violent jihad, but that does not do away with the fact that the terrorist threat we face is overwhelmingly an Islamic terrorist threat.

Second, it is ludicrous in the extreme to tell the police and other authorities that they cannot use certain accurate phrases. When a crime is committed and those responsible are still at large, the police need to know who they are after. And an innocent public also has a right to know who they may be at threat from.

But in our idiotic age of PC, we have libertarians and Muslims complaining about racial profiling. This has to do with determining whether a racial or ethnic group might be more likely to commit a particular crime. But the forces of PC do not want our security personnel to make use of such things.

But given what was just said in point one, it is pretty clear that such categorising is indeed appropriate. It makes perfect sense for people to ask hard questions if a group of Middle Eastern men suddenly develops a keen interest in learning how to fly airplanes, especially large passenger jets.

We can rightly worry much less if a group of middle-aged women from Ballarat want to take up flying lessons. In the same way, one can be much more fearful walking down a dark alley if one encounters a bunch of young men – of whatever nationality –with knives in their hands, than a group of teenagers with bibles under their arms.

Knowing who is more likely to commit a crime is an important part of crime fighting, and to not even be able to use certain phrases for fear of offending a group is quite bizarre. What are the police to do when they want to inform a crime stoppers program about who they are after? Suppose they are after a rapist of “Middle Eastern appearance”. Should they not be allowed to use that phrase for fear of vilifying Middle Easterners?

And how far do we extend this? What if a bank robber is a young black woman? If it is politically incorrect to mention the racial or ethnic background, what about gender? We wouldn’t want to be sexist now would we? And what about age? Perhaps we should not be ageist either.

And with some PC types concerned about species-ism, perhaps we cannot even mention that the robber is Homo sapiens. So what are we left with? What can the police tell the public in order to warn them about this offender who is still at large?

If PC goes the whole hog, then all we can be left with is the police very helpfully informing us that some vertebrate was responsible for this morning’s bank heist. So be on the lookout for a vertebrate with bags of cash. That should both comfort the public and greatly assist the police – unless of course it is also wrong to “discriminate” against those with backbones.

Third, will other minorities be extended the same treatment? What about other minorities, such as Bible-believing Christians who wish to take their faith seriously in the public arena? Will they no longer be vilified on a regular basis by politicians and others? Will they no longer be referred to as fundamentalists, intolerant, narrow-minded and bigoted?

In the interests of social harmony and inter-religious relations, will the long-running open season on Christians no longer be tolerated? Will sensitivity classes be compulsory for all public servants so that they do not offend the sensibilities of Christians? Somehow I just don’t think so.

All in all this is just another dumb idea. Our bureaucrats and ruling elites have become so fearful of even possibly offending a Muslim member of the community that they are willing to put us all at risk as a result. The stultifying effects of PC have already cost us far too much. We really do not need any more.

As I mentioned, we can all work toward social harmony and cooperation. But this should not be at the expense of common sense and the wellbeing of the whole community. The sad truth is, the terrorist threat which we face today comes primarily from the Islamic world.

What would really be of help here is for moderate Muslims (oops, I am not supposed to use that phrase) to come out and denounce Islamic terrorism (oops again) unequivocally and unreservedly. Until they do, no amount of political correctness and bureaucratic sensitivity training will relieve the real problems we face.

www.theage.com.au/national/do-not-confuse-islam-with-terrorism-says-book-20090719-dpik.html

[1151 words]

11 Replies to “How PC is Putting Us All at Risk”

  1. I have two close family members who were at one of the hotels in Jakarta 2 days before it was bombed. I can only wonder what these PC nutters would say when faced with the true face of Islam. But isn’t this kind of idea really a subtle acknowledgement of the threat?
    Mark Rabich

  2. We live in a “global community” with universal ethics and standards dictated to the world by the United Nations. Positive collective thinking reaching its tentacles into all aspects of our lives, including the police forces. We are taught systems thinking to tolerate, accept, respect and appreciate others behaviours as there is no right or wrong. Sad when this tolerence creeps into Christianity, like leaven.

    Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

    Donna Opie

  3. We used to say that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, there are only moderate Muslims, but if the term “moderate Muslim” is politically incorrect now what can we say?

    Notably, Multicultural Foundation head Hass Dellal is quoted in the Age article as saying the object is to “change not just language but attitudes.” In other words, the enforcement of politically correct language is designed to brainwash the public. So what else is new?

    Ewan McDonald.

  4. I think the fourth paragraph captures the idiocy of the situation.

    You can’t use the term Islamic terrorist because it might imply that all Muslims are terrorists. (Let’s not talk about how it is acceptable to use the term fundamentalist to describe both murdering muslims and peacable Christians)

    So we use the term moderate Muslim, to concede that this person is probably not a terrorist. And what? That implies to the Muslim that they are inadequate in their faith.

    Can’t the report writers feel the weight of the irony there. The Islamic community sees the peacable Muslims as inadequate Muslims.

    They’re own words damn them.

    If peaceable Muslims really wanted to come out from under the cloud of terrorism they would publicly and vehemently and convincingly condemn terrorism.

    Michael Hutton, Ariah Park

  5. Hi Ewan,

    I made this comment some time back, but in light of Hass Dellal’s quote it’s worth repeating:

    As a warning of where the driving of our culture by changing the language can lead -look no further than George Orwell’s ‘1984’ and the totalitarian state’s ambition to gradually replace English with Newspeak. Every word’s meaning was to be limited so that not even a subversive thought would be possible – there being no way to mentally articulate it.

    Mansel Rogerson

  6. Well said Mansell. Controlling language to control thoughts is an explicit method of Leftwing ideologues, especially feminists. I don’t think it can work. On the Internet, open to everyone, such people are swamped by contrary views. The human mind is very imaginative and inventive.
    John Snowden

  7. If the British government had demanded of its citizens that it tolerate Hitler and Nazism in 1938, in the name of diversity, inclusion and equality, the citizens would rightly have been calling for the men in white coats to take them away, or even to brand them as traitors. Indeed something like this must have been happening for Winston Churchill said at the time,

    “I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said – indeed, I hear it said sometimes now – that we cannot allow the nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary common English politicians. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

    We only have substitute “nazi system of dictatorship” with shariah or homosexual dominance and Churchill’s 1938 speech is brought bang up to date.

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090402/new-diversity-guide-for-police-is-pc-madness/
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090624/failure-over-gay-rights-may-harm-police-career/

    We need politicians with moral courage and martial vigour to combat the fifth columnists in our society. I am hoping that Sir Richard Dannatt, a christian and head of the British Army in the Middle East will step into the political arena when he retires in a few months time.

    David Skinner, UK

  8. Love this article – Thanks Bill and for the information about – A Lexicon on Terror – sounds like something Neville Chamberlain would have endorsed.

    Touching on this topic and to further illustrate media discrimination, here is a letter to the Editor of the West Australian on – Immigration Matters – that was published
    Friday 10 July. The words in [square brackets], are what was NOT included and further illustrates the medias bias.

    Dear Editor,

    I agree with Don Jackson’s letter ‘Beware the new Tower of Babel’ Wed 1/7- Strength is achieved through unity not diversity. This is not to deny the richness of various cultures that have contributed colour, flavour and style to Aussie culture – [who wants to eat meat pies every night in preference to pasta, pizzas or pappadums?] But the enrichment of any culture cannot go ahead at the expense of that nations security – it’s strength. [After all] isn’t that the first priority of any government anywhere, to secure it’s boarders and protect it’s people! Anything that compromises national security must be [critically monitored and carefully] dismantled; all other considerations must bow to this [top priority].
    Britian, Denmark and France, with their open door policies, have realized this too late, [to the unravelling of]the host cultures [which, in these cases,] are being challenged by the demands of militant Islam and their [its]’right’ to implement Sharia Law.

    Yes, we must show compassion to genuine refugees whose lives are under threat in their homelands, and make provision for their preservation. But even the Good Samaritan didn’t take the abandoned victim into his own home but rather made provision for his restoration then went on his way. [(see Luke 10)].
    We need to be ‘as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves’ in detecting and dealing with deceivers who come disguised as refugees [- and come they do]. And as a free people we need to get over our phobia of being called names, whether it’s ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’ or ‘homophobe’. [All too] often those who use such terms, do so with a view to paralyzing the person so addressed. These terms become a form of verbal barbed wire aggressively used to immobilize others and prevent further scrutiny and curtailment of their own activities, should they prove to be anti-social, counter productive or a danger to the general community. [Hearer beware!]

    If we’re to be effective in protecting our nation from such internal conflict and erosion, let’s get over being intimidated by name calling, cut through this verbal barbed wire and be determined to reclaim the necessity of national unity. The Bible asks ‘Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3). Obviously not. So if two can’t, what makes us think a multi-divergent nation can?

    Kind regards,
    Michelle Shave

    And how true that “Verbal engineering precedes social engineering”. In terms of evolving, ‘creative’ jihad, this would not doubt be considered as ‘verbal jihad’ – the struggle to re-define and re-frame our own language – to their advantage – of course. Looks like they’ve got the media pretty well stitched up. Praise God for internet sites such as Culture Watch and other social networks that allow for (reasonable)unfetted speech. The aftermath of Iran’s elections and ‘Twitter-pation’ must surely give us all renewed hope of continiuing to be a voice for the voiceless through these doors of online communication that, if God has opened, then none can shut. He’ll always have the last word.

    Michelle Shave

  9. Excellent article. I just hope they don’t put out a fatwa on you.

    Let’s face it, our country is already on the downward slide towards becoming an Islamic state and as the ad says: it won’t happen over night, but it WILL happen.

    Heidi Attwood

  10. Yes, as Mansel Rogerson in effect says, the intentional re-creation of the meaning of words, for purely ideological ends, has a distinct Orwellian chill to it – eg. “homophobia”.
    John Thomas, UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: