What Political Correctness Is Leading To…

Via Ed Driscoll, a look at what faces us in the future:

“Moments Of Startling Clarity” Dr. Stephen L. Anderson

“The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions.

But I was not prepared for their reaction.

I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in a different culture.They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff .”

Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”

“While we may hope some are capable of bridging the gap between principled morality and this ethically vacuous relativism, it is evident that a good many are not. For them, the overriding message is “never judge, never criticize, never take a position.”

Coming soon to our shores?

H/T: spotted in comments at ‘Protein Wisdom’

14 comments for “What Political Correctness Is Leading To…

  1. December 26, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Already here, long, long ago. 1990, to my certain knowledge.

    The award for police investigation a few weeks ago went to the team which finally nailed the other killers of Bannaz Mahmod, the primary ones being her father and his relatives, who raped her first.

    While I appreciate that the investigation clarified things for officers when investigating status-murders in ethnic communities, let’s not forget that it wasn’t that difficult to solve since Bannaz had appealed for police help about five times and was videoed on a hospital trolley the first time she was duffed up, giving a statement as to who had done it and predicting they were going to kill her.

    The officers who failed to respond before the death – particularly a woman officer – were given words of advice. Their careers was not delayed much by the mistaken reading of the situation. However, without wishing to sound unsympathetic, the risk for officers every single day is that an accusation of racism can see them booted out no matter how ridiculous the assertion is. It is easy to imagine a situation where an officer is inclined to dismiss a complaint as amateur dramatics when their own job could be compromised by taking it seriously.

    The first lesson to take away from Aisha’s face and Bannaz’s death is that this is done as a public act and that means the people do know who did it – they have to, because it is the visible exercise of capricious physical power which restores the status of the family. Just like any other group of thugs.

    • December 27, 2011 at 6:18 am

      And that’s how they should be treated – like any other group of thugs.

    • December 27, 2011 at 7:48 am

      It’s seriously appalling. Why is no one speaking up and opposing great wrong?

      • December 27, 2011 at 9:11 am

        Because at the moment, the MPs and police who do it are at serious risk of personal retaliation.

        They also find themselves unwillingly getting on two other buses, with those who see this as primarily a tool to beat what really IS a racist drum and the militant atheists who wrongly put this down to religion. Neither position is correct but it doesn’t stop the issue being co-opted.

        I wouldn’t normally quote the F-Word as a source of information but they have a very good encapsulation of this:

        In reality the concept of honour is more about convenience than culture. In communities where honour-based violence occurs, marriage is generally not a matter of personal choice based on compatibility but rather a system through which families enrich themselves. Women are the currency in this system and are exchanged by male members of their families in return for financial or social benefit. Marriages can enable families to protect or strengthen their ownership of property, to pay off a debt, to deprive women of their inheritance, to build alliances and to strengthen family and tribal ties.

        The article is very strongly recommended as it summarizes all points you need for this subject, and it is well-written because they are desperate for people to understand it. It also illustrates the difficulty they run in to when trying to prevent the attacks, such as the refusal of doctors’ surgeries to carry their contact poster in case it offends male patients – which it very well might.

        http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/08/banaz_mahmod

        I dunno what’s for the best, but first out is to get this in to the public space whereby it is possible to admit that this happens. The Investigation Award helps that.

  2. December 26, 2011 at 9:57 am

    I also wrote on this (several weeks ago), citing Clare Spark’s blog. Spark, an American historian, devotes her blog to exploding the myths behind and discovering the roots of multiculturalism, which go back to the Enlightenment.

    http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/multiculturalism-explained-questions-answered/

    I ran across her blog on PJ Media in one of her comments which linked to this statement of hers, particularly pertinent, it would seem:

    ‘Multiculturalism is not the same as cultural pluralism as it was once understood, but an entire epistemology that claims we cannot understand another race or “culture” unless we belong to that other group, hence there are no universal facts, just group facts. Thus, even an American feminist could argue, if she or he is a multiculturalist, that the West has no right to object to clitoroidectomy in non-Western countries.’

    • December 27, 2011 at 6:19 am

      I haven’t read a lot of PJ Media, but I think I might start.. 😉

  3. steng
    December 26, 2011 at 10:30 am

    If we cannot criticise acts of cruelty or misogyny for fear of ‘misjudging’ then we should have nothing to do with those parts of the world. If the idea is we passively observe then we should not be looking.

    I have no doubt this entails a large amount of closing borders and severing ties, but so it goes. And if our own culture is ‘poorer’ because we do not know about the barbarism of others, then we will just have to live with the consequences.

    We cannot have this both ways; we cannot both care and be separate.

    • December 27, 2011 at 6:20 am

      Well, quite! That never seems to occur to anyone else as a way forward, though, does it? I suspect the answer is they provide too many employment opportunities…

  4. December 26, 2011 at 11:06 am

    For them, the overriding message is “never judge, never criticize, never take a position.”

    I’ll judge and I’ll take a position. What these people did to this woman was pure evil.

    • December 27, 2011 at 6:20 am

      Yup, I’m with Will Jones. Let’s follow an example from the past.

  5. Rob F
    December 26, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Me too.

    If you don’t take a position, then you’re tacitly justifying that kind of behaviour.

    You can be someone who tolerates the disfigurement of women in the name of multiculturism, or you can be someone who defends womens’ rights.

    You can’t be both things at the same time.

    Hey, can I invent the term “Quantum Lefty”? Do you think it’d catch on?

    Sorry, I’ve had too much beer (hic!).

    • December 27, 2011 at 6:21 am

      At Christmas? Surely not? 😉

  6. Will Jones
    December 26, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.” – General Sir Charles Napier

    There’s a reason why he’s on the SW plinth at Trafalgar Square.

  7. January 9, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Julie Bindel – who gets her share of ridicule – has written a strong condemnation in Standpoint.

    Forced marriage dihonours Britain.

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4258/full

    It will be interesting to see whether she is tackled for this blunt speaking:

    why should we “go through the community” on the subject of forced marriage when we do not do so with other offences? Why should there be one rule for Muslim women and another for white Western women? This cultural relativism is the result of the creeping acceptance of aspects of Sharia law.

    Bindel disagrees that the strategy of refusing to make this a criminal offence is the right one, but she gives the arguments fairly for both sides and states authoratitve sources.

    FWIW, I think she’s correct. If this had happened in white society the NSPCC, Childrens Society, Barnardos and all the others would be howling about child abuse when the bride – and some grooms – are under 18. The Charities concerned with womens’ issues would be lobbying to have this categorized as domestic violence.

Comments are closed.