I was watching the news today and there was coverage of the acquittal of the British National Party head honcho on the charge of something like 'fomenting race hatred'. It was based on the same channel's undercover report where he made a private speech that was secretly recorded. Passing quickly on from the report's distinction that an all white jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible these non-BBC-luvvies just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), I guess I should make some effort to listen to the whole thing before commenting, but I really can't be bothered. It sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck, so what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' thing sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.
Seems that having not got the required result there are now moves afoot to change the law some more, to bend it in a favoured direction. This is a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forfathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?
And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep this written blog the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.
So I recently offended. I didn't mean to, but I did.
It wasn't even an opinion, but a projection based on some facts. Or, at least, as near to any as it is possible to get these days. It started (and I didn't even start it) with the environment, but sort of strayed into other territories.
Basically I moved from my understanding of the extrapolation of population growth (which already had, without my knowing lit a fuse - though if we have finite space and an expanding world population I can't see any other end point), to a notion that democracy was perhaps not the perfect ideal some would have it. Things could be quite easily moved in directions not anticipated by its most ardent proponents by the simple expedient of one societal set out-breeding another. If that set harbours differing views then, well, by democratic process they could effect change simply by outvoting those who disagree, and may have until a certain point have been in the majority. Then it boils down to how radical the changes are required to be, and if the new minority can live with them. In essence, democracy can be democratically voted out. And that is hard to reverse.
One of the party I was discussing this with suddenly announced that she was offended. I asked by what. She didn't quite seem to have the specifics, but I'm guessing she just didn't approve of this area of philosophical exploration and sought to censor, or stop it. As she was a nice person and I saw no value in taking this discussion down a dark path, I apologised for unintended offence, and we got back to more neutral territory pronto. Some book or other I think. As she may not have read Fahrenheit 451 the irony that it may end on the bonfire one day would doubtless have been lost on her.
So I remain troubled, for all the examples and reasons shared above. Actually, I believe she was offended by her own mindset. I had not said anything that was not a reasonable potential scenario, and though there are non-verbal indicators that can shape the dry content of words, I actually offered no view at all as to whether I thought this possible outcome was a good or bad thing. Hence my offendee had decided for herself that it was bad, and heaped her self-criticism for finding it so upon me. So if anyone should have been offended, it was me.
So if you're interested in my opinion, and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are, I'd say go on a guilt trip I you feel so disposed, but don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. I've said it before but will say it again: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; if you are so peverse as to want it to find you... it will'.
Addendum:
This from the Telegraph: No one has the right to band hatred
To which I aded my adapt of the above post:
Volt(aire) face! Passing quickly on from the news report's (that introduced me to this) distinction that an 'all white' jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible the jury just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), it sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck. So what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' bit I was served sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.
Having not got the required result these 'moves afoot to change the law' some more, to 'bend it in a favoured direction', are a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forefathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?
And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep anything written here or in my blog on the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.
But most offence seems to be baggage taken along by those who are already on guilt trips of their own making.
So if you're interested in my opinion (and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are), feel free to take that journey if you feel so disposed. But don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. It's been said before and is worth repeating: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; but if you are so perverse as to want it to find you... it will'.
