BS: Political Correctness goes too far

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:46 PM

... and here is another, online, one, Lox, from

Telegraph.co.uk

'Cover up' claims over Asian sex gangs
Charities and agencies working with victims of sexual abuse have been accused of covering up the role of British Pakistani Muslims in sexually exploiting young white British girls.

Charities and agencies working with victims of sexual abuse have been accused of covering up the role of British Pakistani Muslims in sexually exploiting young white British girls.
Most agencies have publicly denied a link between ethnicity and the grooming of vulnerable girls as young as 11 on streets by criminal gangs of pimps.
=====
Still going to assert that it's only the Mail & The Sun?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

Lox - Your fight with Akenaton is up to you and him. I was not commenting on that, I was only referring to your rather extreme reaction to the entirely satirical post I made quite some time ago about the hypothetical situation of people censoring the word "niggardly" out of books on the supposition that it was a racist attack of some sort...

I was strictly being humorous and engaging in some pointed political satire when I said that, not being literal, and I was referring back to an actual protest incident that occurred fairly recently over a public figure's innocent use of the word "niggardly"...a protest fueled by ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of the protestors. We had a thread going about it at the time, but I don't know what the title of that thread was.

*********

I don't believe for a moment that there is anyone in this conversation who is in favor of or promoting racism in any way. There are simply 2 sets of people here with 2 primary sets of concerns foremost in their minds, one of those sets momentarily trumping the other in each person.

1. Those who are concerned that Black people should not be stigmatized, treated unequally, or verbally insulted. That includes everyone here, in my opinion.

2. Those who are concerned that Mark Twain's brilliant book about Huck Finn should not be bowdlerized in a spirit of fear over a particular word which is in the book because Twain wrote honestly and accurately about the rural society of the early 1800s. And who feel that the book would actually enlighten the reader...as Twain was very much defending the rights and natural equality of Black people in that book.

Both sets of concerns are entirely legitimate. Both sets of people are entirely well intentioned.

The only reason we have these disagreements here is that some people's emotional gut reaction leaps to issue number 1 FIRST, and they mainly focus on that...

And some other people's emotional gut reaction leaps to issue number 2 FIRST, and they mainly focus on that...

Step 3 is: Everyone who originally decided to take up one side of the argument for some reason gets more and more vociferous, defensive, and intransigent defending their own position...and if they are also rather emotionally immature in a certain sense or just unable to control their own negativity, then they quickly move to step 4....

Step 4: Personally attacking the people on the other side of the argument, calling them stupid, calling them senile, calling them racist, calling them fascist, whatever... and thereby reducing them to some dumb stereotype of evil or stupidity.

And that leads us directly to step 5...

Step 5: The entire thread and the conversation is now well and truly derailed by the emotional immaturity of certain posters who cannot avoid falling into the deep emotional reactivity of step 4, and you can basically take the thread and flush it down the toilet now, because all hopes of reasonable dialogue have pretty well gone down the drain anyway.

The above unfortunate tale is what eventually happens on most political, social, and religious threads here, and it is that which makes this place, by turns, either sadly hilarious, boring, or just plain tragic.

It's also, frankly, a total waste of a person's time, and if I wasn't seriously addicted to chatting here on a daily basis just for something to do, I'd have left it long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:02 PM

That will be three apologies which I am owed by Lox, but I shall not hold my breath....or my tongue!

Ebbie if you wish to continue with your shit stirring, please try to find a stooge who actually knows what he is talking about.

You and Lox seem to be a match made in hell.....thats twice the pair of you have ended up with an omelette between the eyes.

Time to give the stiletto a spell on the grindstone?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:12 PM

BTW....I am against neither "Pakistanis", "Morroccans" nor "Turks",
I am against "liberal hypocrisy", both in the censorship of our literary heritage.....and in matters of race or religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:44 PM

There's another aspect of this that is bothersome... That is if we allow Mark Twain to be sanitized then what next??? Paint over the nude portions of the old masters in the art museums??? How about a towel for Michelangelo's "David"???

I mean, the Smithsonian just had to remove an art film because the art nazis complained that there was an 8 second portion that showed a crucified Christ in the4 background with ants crawling on it???

I mean, lets leave art to be just that: art...

"And the colored girls sang..."

Opps, "And the African American women sang"...

Give me a break...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:45 PM

Because it's about a couple of kids, the Twain books are seen a "children's books" by most people. They can be read at that level, perhaps, but it may require more maturity for most students to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts and it is necessary to know how they were used at a given time in order to understand things written in a given time.

The meanings and emotions attending the word being removed have changed significantly, and many "kids," at the ages where academics want to "teach" them, may be unprepared to understand the changes - as they're usually "taught."

The replacement word has a much narrower meaning that has not changed significantly, and appears to me to be an attempt to restore unambiguous pejorative connotations to all references to Jim. Since you can't read the books without knowing that he's also black - and with consideration of where the change is being made - I suspect that to some degree it comes from an intent to reemphasise his (and by inference all other of his race) inferiority. That it changes the meaning of the book, and makes it even more difficult for immature students to understand the points Twain made, is immaterial to those (down South?) who take comfort in a new way to (subtly?) express their prejudices.

If the "offensive" word needs to be changed to permit it to be "taught"(?) to kids too immature to understand how the word was used, the replacement is an incredibly poor choice. It also trivializes the multiple ways in which Twain used the original word; but it would require finding different appropriate replacements specific to each usage by Twain to even suggest the multiple connotations and meaning(s) in the original. By attempting to use a single (clearly pejorative) word in all places, the bowdlerization cannot avoid emphasizing the "n...s were and always will be inferior" while pretending to be unprejudiced.

Similarly, the "Wizard of Ooze" (the movie) is a quite innocent children's tale, but the "Wizard of Oz" (the book) was a very adult, bitter, POLITICAL satire that few mature academics can fully understand simply because the "victims" it assaults are now mostly unrecognizable.

"Gulliver's Travels" is pandered about as a good story for kids, but was again political satire that almost nobody can understand. Many of those attacked were French(?) and British(?), where the politics were too complex (and mostly too trivial) for anybody to care to remember.

I knew kids in my high school who knew that "the feathers from a newly downed goose" made the best "arse wipe," but there's no way "Gargantua and Pantagruel" should be gratuitously left where other than the most precocious kids below the age of 50 can poke about in it.

At 10, the kids should be reading the collected writings of Sigmund Freud - like I did - so that by the time they're 16 or so they'll understand why Ana said "Daddy was a nut." At about 12 my son read some Camus (it was the skinniest book I had handy when he needed a book report). He got it but maybe it's part of the reason he's been "a little a'port of a straight course" since, so I'd suggest maybe it's a little advanced for most kids.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:08 PM

"calling them stupid, calling them senile, calling them racist, calling them fascist, whatever"

I never heard anyone calling anyone here the "n" word yet....IMO, just to make it "historically accurate", one needs to do that. There is no other way. :)

As to covering over the nude (or was it naked) art..that is a reddd herring (one short of a herring salad). and, possibly as dead a fish as the dead drumfish in Arkansas. :))

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:09 PM

Ake and MtheGM,

Well done.


You have shown that the report was reported in more newspapers than the Sun and the Mail.


Great.



Ake,


You also claimed "This is going to shake the "human rights" act to its core"



The human rights act has nothing to do with this report.



Noone has invoked the human rights act, or got away with anything because of the human rights act.



Which makes it irrelevant.



Which makes Ake's reference to it BULLSHIT.



Some Gangsters get caught and arrested and this is meant to "shake the "human rights" act to its core"



Duh!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:10 PM

Ake says,

"taking too much satisfaction in the suffering of her people.
That in itself is a type of racism."

thus accusing Azizi, bniot here to defend herself of Racism.


Apology? to a spineless turd like you? Don't make me laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Here we go again. It's getting tiresome. And a tad more than silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:19 PM

Dont blame me gnu, I dont respond to either Lox or Don T.

and you're on my "short list"....   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:33 PM

"No word from you "liberals" on the younng white girls being groomed and sexually assaulted by Pakistani muslim gangs in the UK and even larger numbers in the Netherlands?"

You haven't answered - what the fuck does this have to do with Mark Twain?


Oh no - I remember - its a discussion vaguely centred around race.


A fiver for anyone who can spot any other connection.



VT points out very astutely that you are particularly concerned about the plight of 'White' girls.


Do they merit attention that other girls don't


So it would seem.


And how about the 1500 girls kidnapped by Morroccans and Turks 'fact'


Well the only sites that come up with this info are 4freedoms, who on their homepage are promoting the next EDL: march, and SKADI.net, which is a self proclaimed english speaking online Germanic community, most of whose posts talk about inbreeding brown mongrels.


But no - Ake, with MtheGM's courageous help, has proved beyond doubt ...

... that the report about the convictions in rotherham was printed in more papers than the sun and the Mail.


In the face of such overwhelming research, I have no choice but to stick two fingers up.


Racist Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

ake... you only show up on one list of mine and you know what that list is.

Having said that, if you actually did play devil's advocate with the intent to illicit intense discussion I would applaud your efforts.

But, I know that is not the case. It is only a side effect. Still, you may serve a purpose, much as a pimple on the ass of the lathargic.

Oh my.... I think I may have just complimented ake. Oh dear me.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:05 PM

Well pimple or otherwise, I don't know of anyone else who uses ultra right wing websites to back up their claim that they aren't racist.

What a waste of binary.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:42 PM

Let's forget Ake fir the moment...

Who is gonna go thru all the movies that have been made in the last 40 years and dub in acceptable substitutes for "fuck", "motherfuckers", G.damned, etc.' etc???

(The same guy who is gonna spray paint over the private parts in the those paintings hangion' in the National Gallery, Boberdz...)

Hmmmmm??? I thought so...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:42 PM

Nice try on the niggardly comment, Little Hawk. And they say irony is a lost art. I suppose they're right.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: andrew e
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:15 PM

What's the problem?

If you don't want "slave", buy the other editions!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:24 PM

I suspecyted you all along Bobart. It was you who spray painted the red on the blackbirds wings, that killed 'em off. Stay away from me, if you plan to spray paint my private parts. What may be OK for the Vine, is not fer the fruits of the Vine. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:29 PM

Problem, which should be blazingly obvious to anybody who actually thinks about it, is that if school districts buy the bowdlerized version, the education of kids who read it is shortchanged.

It's good for kids to grapple with the problems of language sensitivity--and to get a true reflection of racial attitudes at the time Twain was writing.

Of course teachers need to play a crucial role here--and if teachers don't have the leeway to explain the use of "nigger" in historical and social context, that is what really needs to change.

To accept less than 1) teaching the book (Huck) and 2) teaching it as originally written is an abdication of responsibility by society, a travesty of Twain---and a shining example of PC stupidity--as noted in the opening post.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:44 PM

The story of the moroccan "loverboys" comes from the Autobiography of "Maria Mosterd" (2008) entitled "real men don't eat cheese"

This book became a bestseller and the author went on to do talks around schools etc and her and her mother did rather well finacially out of it and in the process they raised awarenesss of the issue.

Then investigative journalists Peter R. de Vries and a colleague of his wrote an expose of the book, which found numerous inconsiistencies and inaccuracies in the book which led them to believe that it was a fraud and that "loverboys" were a fictional stereotype.

The only relevant supportable bit of info is that about 87% of Amsterdams pimps are of Turkish origin.



There remains no connection between any of this information and the human rights act, nor with Mark Twains books.



In the absence of such connections, it remains true that Akes insertion of irrelevant informatiion about unconnected ethnic minorities into a discussion loosely based on race, serves only one purpose and that is to make insinuations about "Pakistani Moslems".

He may be doing this deliberately to wind people up, or he may be doing it because he has a problem with Pakistani Moslems.

Based on his comments in another thread where he asserted (based on a chat with a goan friend) that Moslems think they're better than "us" and that is why they don't want to integrate with british society, it seems consistent that he has a problemm with Pakistani Moslems and that he covers it up with unconvincing diatribes about "liberals".


I'm out of this thread - hope you all have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:54 PM

Folks, let's try to keep the personal flames out of this thread and stick to the issue of censorship and its effects. If you wish to fight, please go elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: robinia
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:24 AM

Was I the only one who read, at the close of the NPR Huck Finn discussion, a comment from Mark Twain himself on the subject of "unsuitable" early reading? I THINK it was there that Twain was quoted to the effect that his young mind had, alas, been coarsened by the low language of the unexpurgated Bible!   I wish I could remember his exact words, which I'm very feebly abridging here. They were the best part of the whole discussion.

PS My apologies if this is a duplicate posting -- tried unsuccessfully to post before...

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:27 AM

Well eBarnicle, I think the single issue of censorship of literature is almost completely opposed in this forum.
It is obviously wrong from a cultural point of view, and there is little needs to be said on that issue.

However the issue of institutional silence/censorship of thought/political correctness, is a much wider and perhaps much more relevant issue.
Discussion of these issues brings a totally different reaction from these pages, as discussion of subjects like "multiculturalism", "rights of minorities" etc bring into question the whole "liberal" ideology, which most here subscribe to.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM

Linking the idea of schools using expurgated editions of literature and Hamlet, above, I "did" Hamlet at A Level, and only discovered when I bought my own, university level, annotated copy, that there was something rude about what was said when Hamlet asked if he could lay his head in Ophelia's lap, and she replied that she did not know he meant country matters. Being somewhat shielded from basic vocabulary, I was able to correctly interpret the phrase as meaning sex by thinking of farmers' daughters observing animals in fields, without spotting the pun at all.

My A Level teacher would have had fits had this been exposed in class. She had enough trouble explaining the difference between "sensual" and "sensuous", and why one applied to Keats, and the other didn't. Byron was waved away with relief as she didn't have to teach him, except to point out with distaste that the word which didn't apply to Keats did apply to him.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Surely we should accept that there are some works that should be censored or at least restricted in circulation. I know this is a shibboleth for USAians in general (whoops, there I go stereotyping) but two examples I have in mind would be "Mein Kampf" and "The Klansman".

Where Ake fails is in failing to observe that no case of statistical significance has been made regarding the racial characteristics he purports to perceive. What he reports seem to be three anecdotal observations. Not only is no statistical significance made out but also no causative relationship (whether as a matter of race or religion) is made out. All exploitation ought to be take seriously, whether it is sexual or other, and in the case of sexual exploitation, regardless of the race or sex of the exploiter or exploitee - but at the same time people have complex liberties and the difficulty is to evaluate the boundary at which one person's liberty unacceptably impinges upon that of another.

I would also observe that unless I have in haste misread, Ake cites the Sun, the Mail, the Times and the Telegraph - all of which are keen to seize on items for reportage that may be prayed in aid of a right-wing agenda, and the difference between two newspapers read by bigots and four newspapers read by bigots is hardly huge.   The Times alas has long fallen from its perch as an impartial reporter.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:27 AM

Richard, I only read the Times, and did not cite any other paper.
I'm sure all papers carried this major story to some extent.

Although the Times is to the right politically, it is also very "liberal" in its treatment of social issues....much too "liberal" for my taste, and much too far right politically.

The issue is not the nationality of the criminals, as I thought I had made clear, but the religious convictions which cause them to see us.....atheists and Christians, as weak, dissolute and immoral.
They may be correct in that assessment,but that does not give them the "right" to exploit our children.

I dont suppose any of the abused girls were Muslims?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:52 AM

Actually, now that you're asking:

I did a lot of research on this last night.

The total estimated number of underage girls being abused in the sex trade in Holland is between 1000 and 1500.

Of these, many are smuggled in through Turkey (hence the dominance of Turkish Pimps) from Africa, in Particular from Ghana, but some from Nigeria.

This does not reflect the full range however as there are in fact girls forced into prostitution from all backgrounds due to the amount of demand.

In fact 80% of prostiitutes in Holland are foreigners.

But wait - What was that? - Did I say demand?

Yes - these girls are not just exploited by their pimps, but by the customers who pay to abuse them.

Holiday makers?

"The uncomfortable truth, though, is that most men who pay for sex are just "regular guys" — colleagues, brothers, fathers, sons and lovers."

The Times Online


And presumably these guys will be the first to hang a rope from the nearest tree when they find a "Moslem" pimp.




Oh yes - and one more thing ...

... this piece of filth ...


"the religious convictions which cause them to see us.....atheists and Christians, as weak, dissolute and immoral.
They may be correct in that assessment,but that does not give them the "right" to exploit our children."



In other words it is Islam that is responsible for these crimes.

In other words these Gangs represent the truth about Islam.


There are 1.5 million Moslems in Britain.

53 were convicted of of pimping teenage girls.


Therefore we can conclude that Islam is the root of 53 men abusing teenage white) girls.

And therefore not at the root of 1.5 million (minus 53) not abusing teenage girls.


The iimplication is that the rest of those 1.5 million would if they could.


Sorry Ake, but your view is based 100% on a racist premise.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:56 AM

Hang on Richard, I'm trying to agree with you here, but by saying Akenaton fails in failing, do you mean he is succeeding?

Bloody rum do if he is.

I agree that the right wing press have an agenda and to put the word Muslim in the frame is no different to pointing out at most of our in mates are Christians. After all, there is the assumption that if you are indigenous White in The UK, you must be a Christian.

It is the adding of religion to push further the point of stereotyping and hating that the press and their stooges (you, Ake) that I find disturbing. I also find the concept of gangs pushing women into prostitution appalling and hope that the fact ere is a story may well help the police push for funding to tackle it.

Just out of interest, they have a long way to go before they overtake the empire of the Albanians over here. The vast majority of massage parlours are owned by Albanians.

Of course, neither the media nor Akenaton would feel comfortable pointing that out. After all, the criminals are White, oh and generally homophobic.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:27 AM

Please try to be sensible Willie.
Nobody is pushing anything, I am simply repeating a very large investigation carried out by one of our leading newspapers.
It is impossible to skew anything even if I wanted to.
Of the 56 convictions,in the North of England, 50 were Pakistani Muslims.....as far as I can make out all the victims were "white" girls between the ages of 11 and 16.

"Gangs pushing women into prostitution?" you just dont get it....do you?

If these girls had been boys, you would be calling it peadophilia as you did in the Priest abuse thread.

You can all squirm as much as you like, but "facts are chiels that monae ding"

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:35 AM

Oh and by the way, I do know quite a lot about the Albanian crime families, and would deport the lot of them....the criminals.

But that is part of the bigger picture which also includes other minorities some of whom are also criminals who hide behind the "human rights act" to carry out their criminal activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:48 AM

No I don't mean that Willie - I mean that his failing is the failure etc...

Ake - a single set of connected events (as far as I can see a conjoint investigation) are likely to turn up connected perpetrators, so that set of events is unlikely to be statistically significant in determining the distribution of all perpetrators of similar acts.

Now IF you could establish that it was an intrinsic part of Islam to regards all non Moslems as dissolute and that that tendency was more entrenched in Islam than the equivalent in other religions, you might be starting to focus on a cause for concern - but to get to where you have gone, to advance that to say that Moslems for that reason justify the exploitation of non-Moslems involves a leap of faith without evidence. It is tending to internal contradiction if you link it with the rates of conversion of educated women to Islam.

As you know I am critical of all religions but I don't yet see a case against Islam generally or Pakistanis generally from the facts you cite. Certainly I can see much to be said in favour of Sharia law on interest and banking, but in Islam generally there is freedom of interpretation of most parts of the religion so some spread of beliefs is to be expected.

When you say on the one hand that Pakistanis are generally evil, that Muslims are generally evil, that Albanians are generally evil - er - you do tend to look like a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:50 AM

Well using a slightly different example as pointer.

The recent political assassination in Pakistan, when the bodyguard shot his employer 27 times while the rest of the bodyguard didn't lift a finger.

It's interpreted (apparently) that in objecting to Pakistan's censorship laws, this democratically elected official was guilty of blaspheming the prophet - oh, that's handy.

The clerics appear to be applauding the act, whilst the government 'officially' abhors the crime.

Since it appears that nobody can disagree with Muslim philosophy without risking their life (either now or later e.g. Rushdie), is this the future you want for our (once great) country or any other come to that?

When will so many of you realise that your brand of liberalism is interpreted as weakness by the radicals? You run the risk of being swept away unless people like Ake et al, are allowed to 'speak the unspeakable'.

We will see . . . unfortunately.

It's interesting how much spite and vitriol is aimed at him, rather than the people actually responsible for an ever-increasing list of crimes (well that's what we call them, the clerics of course, view it differently). I never realised that 'liberals' could be so vicious.

I just wonder how many acts of absolute and extreme prejudice against non-Muslims (world-wide) will occur before you collectively start to see the light.

Don't worry, I will no doubt be subject to a barrage of righteous indignation too. 'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: EBarnacle
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:01 AM

Kindly take the drifted part of the discussion to a different thread. This thread is supposed to be about censorship and bowdlerization and its effects, not about sexual crimes and the racism of the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Lox
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:40 AM

"This thread is supposed to be about censorship and bowdlerization and its effects, not about sexual crimes and the racism of the press."

exactly one of the key points in my posts.


"criminals who hide behind the "human rights act" to carry out their criminal activities."


This is Fiction.


It has been shown to be fiction.


The perpetrators of these crimes were arrested and jailed and human rights Law was never involved at any stage, nor did the criminals even attempt to use it to "hide behind".


Ake knows this and it has been clarified so he can understand it.


So saying it again anyway makes it a deliberate lie.


But Akes words have had the predicted effect, because now another poster has taken the opportunity to start bashing Moslems.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:51 PM

Ah, I might have tried a rational think about what Akenaton was stating but try as I might, I can't so thats that.

After all, he says Albanians but he says Pakistani Muslims. So what is the religion of the Albanian slave owners and how does their religion affect this debate?

After all, if gangs from Pakistan are judged by their faith, then so should the Albanians, oh and so should every law breaker.

As the q'ran (according to an Islamic scholar I was reading of recently) goes out of it's way to forbid making money out of slavery, I fail to see how bringing the religion into it helps. After all, bad enough evil people using religion as a front for their own bigotry and ends without everybody acknowledge it.

Political correctness? Ok, let's bring it back into the debate. A colleague who is a Muslim sent me a Xmas card and we sent one back. Now, the one we sent, I couldn't remember his home address so put it in his pigeon hole at one of our offices. His manager saw me put it in and the next thing I know, I get an email from some diversity officer in our London office asking me if I went out of my way to offend Muslims.

I sent it to Tahir who kindly sent them an email asking them to get stuffed. Moral? There aint one, I am just upset that tax payers are paying for this crap and otherwise rational people feel it important to be condescending to minority employees.

Me? She forgot I am not technically employed so her threats were a good giggle too.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:51 PM

I was under the distinct impression that the 'Moslems' were actually 'bashing us'. It is their avowed intent.

However, I'm probably wrong because I'm a bit obtuse.

The fact that I used to fly worldwide carrying 'stuff' into some of the worst places in Africa et al, and from a 'focussed' military background . . . what would I know?

You have NO idea . . .

Just keep the door locked in your ivory tower - you don't seem to have made the connection - this IS still about censorship. YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED AND MANIPULATED.

If you don't believe me - and you DON'T, read a few entries of Wikileaks - or is that a conspiracy too?

Ake - you have my sympathy, but I don't think it's actually worth the effort - unless you get something out of it of course.

Anyway, that's enough energy expended here.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM

Apparently for the paranoid community that needs to be constantly scared shitless abpout something in order to be happy, "The International Muslim Conspiracy" has now replaced "The International Communist Conspiracy" which in turn replaced "The International Jewish Conspiracy" which was preceeded by "The International Papist Conspiracy", etc ad nauseum........ all really childish and boring and also nothing whatever to do with this thread.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:23 PM

I am amazed.   The Catholic church was villified over homosexual assaults by criminal priests....gallons of crocodile tears were shed.
The sexual acts were routinely described as paedophelia, to disguise the true nature of the crimes.

In this case, is it simply coincidence that 95% of the criminals were Muslims abusing "white" girls?.....and police sources say this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The connection with this thread is of course "liberal ideology" which demands that we censor our literary heritage to suit the "liberal" agenda.

The police say that officers and child protection workers are afraid to speak out against the practices of these Muslim gangs lest they contravene the human rights act and are accused of racism.
The culture of silence which allows these acts to continue, is encouraged and implimented by the same people who wish to re-write our literary classics.

I is also remarkable that the same people who shed the tears for the young people abused by Catholic priests, can spare not a word of comfort for girls as young as 11 forced into a life of sexual abuse!

Call yourselves liberals?......you make me sick!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:37 PM

Is rape, or abuse, sexual or otherwise, worse if the victims are white, not black, brown red, or yellow. Is there an acceptance scale?

Does it really matter what group or race the "raper" is from, or whether they are from the same group, colour, sexual orientation, race or religion?

Should we be just as concerned about rape in non-western countries, such as Africa?

Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:43 PM

Greg: The Jews were libelled ~~ the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were long since exposed as a forgery.

Which doesn't mean that from 1917 until the 1980s the Marxist International was not committed to taking over the world; it was: it made no secret of the intention; but it ceased that policy under Yeltsin in 1991, as you well know, and officially abolished the USSR.

And there are elements in Islam now with the same ambition (we know because they say so); and with, they think, the means to bring it about (or did the Twin Towers just happen to blow over in a heavy wind off the Bay & those London tube trains & buses on 7/7 just derail on bits of uneven track or road & those buildings in Madrid just happen to have an earthquake?).

The well-meaning spokespersons who probably represent the Muslim majority ~~ well, maybe ~~ may inveigh against them and denounce them as atypical & unIslamic; but that won't help you if you happen to be on the next train they bomb or in the street where their next suicide bomber detonates him/herself or when the next intelligence-led pre-emptive police strike is less successful than they have been so far.

Neither childish nor boring and everything to do with this thread, mate.

Don't want to know? Get real! Whatever you PC-ly say, you know it's so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:47 PM

In addition to the above post, how can you remonstrate with this peaceful religion whose more radical members are also intent on blowing seven shades of shit out of other Moslems? The silent majority are just that - ominously silent.

I have absolutely no argument at all with peaceful Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists - you get my drift?

I abhor social violence on the scale we're seeing it - it just happens to be coming from radical Muslims at the moment. We know it's real BECAUSE THEY PUBLICALLY STATE IT - verbally and on their placards.

What part of that are you 'liberals' not taking on board? Does it actually have to happen to you or your family before you take notice?

I equally abhor Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and so on - it's the violence I abhor - including a lot of your vicious reactions to somebody pointing out something you don't agree with.

But I am NOT a racist because I recognise where the greatest threat is currently coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:41 PM

""No word from you "liberals" on the younng white girls being groomed and sexually assaulted by Pakistani muslim gangs in the UK and even larger numbers in the Netherlands?""

I should have thought you would realise that this subject requires discussion on a thread on that specific topic.

Tell you what.

Why don't you give us a list of things you blame on us "liberals", along with a list of threads in which you would like to include them as off topic comments.

That way we'll be forewarned and ready to discuss apples on a thread about oranges.

That suit you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:44 PM

Wind, wind, wind....

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:46 PM

Not only childish and boring (plus totally unrelated to this thread, and only marginally related to objective reality), but increasingly hysterical as well.

My, my.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:18 PM

Where do you find this "hysteria", please, Greg?

Who, precisely, do you think is being "hysterical"?

You regard "childish and boring" as a precise and self-evidently objective critical comment, do you?

Some specific responses would be welcome [or is that a "hysterical" request?].

"My, my" right back to you, my dear fellow: and I hope it keeps fine for you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: LadyJean
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 01:09 AM

Agatha Christie's mystery "Ten Little Niggers" was published in the United States as "Ten Little Indians", because 1) Many Americans find the word nigger offensive. 2) The nursery rhyme the title was taken from isn't known in the U.S., while every child here sang the counting song "Ten Little Indians".

The Dr. Doolittle books also used the word nigger. Some years ago, they were republished in new, nigger free, editions. It's understandable. While Lofting's books are good stories, they are not classics like "Huckleberry Finn". (My mom read Dr. Doolittle to me when I was a small child. I don't remember the word. Now I wonder if she blipped over it, or I thought it was an exotic creature like the pushmepullyou. Since, in those days, African Americans were colored.)

The first time I encountered the word. I found an article in Life magazine about segregation in the south. There was a picture of a sign headed with the word in giant letters. I thought whoever had made it must be pretty dumb if he couldn't spell a simple word like Negro.

I wouldn't believe two words I read in a British newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 02:12 AM

"the "Wizard of Oz" (the book) was a very adult, bitter, POLITICAL satire"

Only one of many otherwise long tedious boring books (that no sane child would read today) that would have sunk without a trace by the same author without the film having been made.

Oh, and then there's "The Princess Bride" - another one of many otherwise long tedious boring books (that no sane child would read today) that would have sunk without a trace by the same author without the film having been made.

(Note: insert other examples ad tedium ...)

One has to ponder whether the makers of these films (and many others like them, also based on other authors who would have otherwise sunk totally without trace today) did a good thing to keep those authors alive - well, more likely mummified - or, by making those movies, did they do something more akin to Shakespeare who took some old tales (which most of us would have never heard of today) and breathe into them some new sort of life as a new product on their own ....

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 05:13 AM

""In this case, is it simply coincidence that 95% of the criminals were Muslims abusing "white" girls?.....and police sources say this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The connection with this thread is of course "liberal ideology" which demands that we censor our literary heritage to suit the "liberal" agenda.

The police say that officers and child protection workers are afraid to speak out against the practices of these Muslim gangs lest they contravene the human rights act and are accused of racism.
The culture of silence which allows these acts to continue, is encouraged and implimented by the same people who wish to re-write our literary classics.

I is also remarkable that the same people who shed the tears for the young people abused by Catholic priests, can spare not a word of comfort for girls as young as 11 forced into a life of sexual abuse!""

Ok, as we are not to be allowed to stay on topic:-

If I thought for one second that your concern was for the plight of the girls involved I might just possibly agree with you.

However the G W Bush technique you employ in order to constantly re-inforce the idea that grooming and rape is a Muslim pastime give the lie to any such concern.

You do not make the same capital out of the activities of the many disparate groups of Eastern European sex trafficking gangs, the major difference being that they are white.

To take your main point of argument """No word from you "liberals" on the younng white girls being groomed and sexually assaulted by Pakistani muslim gangs in the UK and even larger numbers in the Netherlands?""""

1. ""No word""......Hardly surprising since the rest of us know what the topic of this thread is, and have been trying to discuss that topic.

2. Ignoring the feeble attempt to substitute "Pakistani" and "Muslim" for "Criminal" (I'm surprised you didn't go the whole hog and use the abbreviation), your take on targetting doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny.

The true facts are as follows:- A gang of paedophile rapists, who groomed and sexually assaulted young girls, have been arrested and will stand trial for their crimes.

1. The fact that this particular gang happened to be Muslims is totally irrelevant, but it pushes the buttons of those with a racist mindset, and they ignore the fact that the majority of paedophiles in Britain are white and British.

2. The fact that the majority of the victims were white shows only that young Muslim girls are not generally allowed to wander the streets at night.

Any criminal looking to snatch a girl from the street has odds of ten to one or better of finding a white girl.

So the bottom line is that the gutter press (and I include the Times and the Telegraph in that group) and you, Ake, have distorted that straightforward set of facts to further an agenda of anti Muslim "Paki" bashing.

Bigotted both racially and religiously.

You are doing a fine job of defining yourself on this forum.

BTW, do continue to ignore those who disagree with you. It is much easier than trying to defend a seriously biased attitude.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:34 AM

My My.....Hasn't it gone quiet in here?

Could that be because "arch racists" Jack Straw and Keith Vaz have just been headlining BBC NEWS, demanding an inquiry into PAKISTANI MUSLIM gangs exploitation of young "white" girls in the UK.

Of course Straw and Vaz are as "liberal" as our opponents here, and wily politicians to boot.   They are simply re-positioning themselves for the coming storm which will shake the "human rights act to its core".

Back under your stones guys......hear the thunder!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Correctness goes too far
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:02 AM

==="the gutter press (and I include the Times and the Telegraph in that group)"===   Don T.

====
Well, if we are all allowed to make our own definitions, nobody can ever be defeated in argument, eh?

Assuming you are not joking then, Don T., kindly define "gutter press" to justify that particularly fatuous statement. Unless, as appears, it simply means "any newspaper with which I, the great and infallible Don T., happen to disagree" ~~ in which case, please don't bother.

~M~