How Can It Be Wrong To Openly Say You Do Not Like Certain People?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321362/I-stand-Jewish-people-Lawyer-loses-career-office-rant-queue-jumping-man-medical-centre.html

/// Trouble began after she attended the Bardoc medical centre in Bury with her baby. The hearing was told a man dressed in Orthodox Jewish attire 'caused a scene' at the surgery and as a result was seen first by a doctor. ///

/// Back at the law firm Mrs Morris relayed the incident to a receptionist she shared her office with and said: 'I cannot stand Jewish people.' ///

Would she had been so treated if she had said "I cannot stand old people"?

[mikey4444]

More drivel naomi. You don't give freedom to one group of people by taking it away from another group. Everybody in Britain today should be able to go about their daily lives without being abused because of their colour, creed or sexuality. End of argument.

[naomi24]

//You don't give freedom to one group of people by taking it away from another group.//

But that's exactly what you are doing.

[sebhfhion]

Making it against the Law to do or say something does not necessarily mean you will change peoples attitudes. When Apartheid was abolished in South Africa it did not change peoples attitudes overnight it just made it illegal to put those attitudes into practice or to voice opinions deemed 'unlawful'. I agree with Naomi that PC has gone totally over the top and unfortunately, like equality for women, is now in some cases being used as a tool for personal gain. for example 'I did not get the job because I'm black/Gay/a woman/ insert a minority where appropriate' , instead of 'ok I didn't get the job there was a better candfidate'. I marched for Equality for woman and Gay rights, but shudder now at how far PC has gone.

[chrisgel]

Mikey4444 - You can't make racist remarks in Britain any more, so everybody should just get used to it.

Says who?
In the privacy of your own home or with like minded individuals, people will continue to say what they want to say. You cannot legislate against opinions you only harden them.

[Sharingan]

Says the law chrisgel- it's unacceptable and it's astonishing to see so many quite educated people on here who still think it's okay.

[jno]

there's nothing sacred about freedom of speech, it's just one of many possible freedoms and sometimes they conflict. The people who rant about it most are usually the people with the most bile to spill, I've noticed.

[humbersloop]

what does "political correctness" mean, as a matter of fact?

[chrisgel]

Shari - My point is that the law is unworkable. Yes you can make it an offence to say racist things in public or to discriminate on the grounds of race and that is an admirable thing to attempt in my opinion.
But there is an element of society who will regard the legislation as an imposition on "their" rights and, as I have seen myself, drive them further to the right and who then take every opportunity to express these feelings with like minded individuals. I would point to the BNP as an extreme example of this.

[naomi24]

//it's astonishing to see so many quite educated people on here who still think it's okay. //

.... but it's not astonishing to see someone so naive that they completely misunderstand what's being said here. No one has said it's ok - simply that, contrary to jno's apparent disdain for something that people of all colours and creeds have fought and died for, legislation does not alter the thought. That comes only from education.

[jim360]

Freedom of speech does not, or should not, mean freedom to insult, or to be ignorant with impunity. The Jewish woman who was offended should, equally, be free from being so pathetically insulted.

[chrisgel]

Naomi - Indeed. My clumsy point made clear for me. Thank you.

[Sharingan]

I think the school of thought behind the legislation runs something like this though Naomi. If you stop discrimination being socially acceptable in public, in fact if you make it illegal in public, it's prevalence wanes until eventually a more acceptable society emerges where thoughts of racial superiority really are in a minority, and it's then that the legislation has really succeeded, because then people no longer hold those opinions even behind closed doors. this is obviously not a five minute fix, but takes place over many generations and this is why in my opinion racism no matter how ' trivial' it might seem to some people needs stamping on at every opportunity.

[naomi24]

….. or on the other hand, as Chrisgel says, legislation often results in the hardening of opinions. I am very well aware of the thought processes behind it …. but the best laid schemes of mice and men …. and all that. If we prevent opinions contrary to our own from being aired, they are not exposed to rational opposition and therefore we are forcing them underground where they will fester and grow. This is not cut and dried. We are dealing with the perversities and inconsistencies of human nature here - and hence, by attempting to silence people, we are treading a very slippery slope.

[chrisgel]

Shari - //If you stop discrimination being socially acceptable in public, in fact if you make it illegal in public//

These 2 things do not have the same outcome. If I may use a somewhat crass example. Over the last 50 or 60 years there have been three pieces of legislation enacted regarding motoring. 1) Drink driving 2) Seat belts and 3) Using mobile phones.
All of these were met with some resistance initially but due to extensive advertising campaigns etc they have become socially unacceptable to the extent that drink drivers and people who don't wear seatbelts risk the scorn of their peers (as well as legal penalties)
Using mobile phones whilst driving still goes on even though the legislation is there and IMO that is because, as yet, there have been no major advertising campaigns on the subject. Education is far more effective at changing opinions than legislation.

[anotheoldgit]

Once again New judge has come up trumps with his fine answer, and I only wish I could have explained it that way.

I wonder how many in opposition has not sometimes come out with such remarks?

When the time comes that we can no longer speak our mind or choose what we like or dislike or who we like or dislike.

Here's a few to be going on with "I cannot stand Northerners" "I cannot stand southerners" " I cannot stand Travellers" " I cannot stand Roman Catholics" "I cannot stand Manchester United supporters" etc, etc.

These are not my personal dislikes, (before any come up with "you obviously can't stand anyone AOG") they are just set as examples to show that it is no great shakes to say such words.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// More drivel ! ///

/// NJ...complete drivel, ///

It seems everything is deemed 'drivel' by mikey4444 if he disagrees with it.

" I can't stand mikey4444 " oh dear I do hope he is not Jewish, Black, Asian or any other group of persons entitled to be protected from being so offended?

[anotheoldgit]

Whoops missed one,

/// More drivel naomi. ///

[THECORBYLOON]

The difference is that you are judging each and every member of a particular grouping to be the same as each other. Saying you don't like northerners is not precise, is that northern English folk or is it northern British? Saying you cannot stand old people is the same, how would you define "old"? If you say you do not like members of a particular race or colour, is that not a definite and identifiable grouping?

Before you trot out the bit about the English or white folk in general not being entitled to protection, where is the evidence for that?

[Zacs-Master]

Shari - a more acceptable society emerges where thoughts of racial superiority really are in a minority. How can that happen in the Jewish society (I chose that word carefully) when it is so insular?

Israel Shahak, a concentration camp survivor believes that History repeats itself because we lie about it. Shahak believes that Jews need to re-educate themselves about their history and religion. Jews are "a closed society" that uses "anti Semitism" to quash criticism, which is considered "hatred" or "self hatred."

I know this is slightly off-piste but I wondered how you felt about my assertion and Mr Shahaks thoughts.

[Zeuhl]

/When the time comes that we can no longer speak our mind or choose what we like or dislike or who we like or dislike./

You can aog, you can...

But if they are nonsense generalisations like the examples you give, you run the risk of confirming your stupidity and lack of judgement