Is political correctness changing our lifestyle.

[Pete McCluskey.]

Our Prime Minister yesterday gave a speech where he mentioned the risk of a terrorist attack was severe at this time. He also managed to give the entire speech without mentioning once which group of people/ religion were threatening us. I was left wondering was it those pesky Hare Krishnas with their drums and cymbals? Maybe it was Presbyterian's waving their crosses and screaming the Lord's Prayer out loud at this time of year. Maybe the threat came from that old chap with the beard who dresses in red and is seen in every department store......
Well I'm sure you get my drift? Is this inability to name names and say how it is for fear of offending some group a bigger threat to our life style than any terrorist?
I for one think it is.:furious:

 

[Larry L.]

You've nailed it, Pete.

Every busload of NUNs should undoubtedly be eyed with extreme suspicion as well...

 

[Jack]

In these modern days of PC, walk along quietly and be prepared to kill every mf'er you meet.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I suspect it was more political that politically correct. How many party votes would be lost
if the communicated threat was more focused?

 

[Larry L.]

I suspect it was more political that politically correct.

Often there is no difference.

 

[Keith]

I mean like, did he have to spell it out? I suppose the difficult thing is to differentiate between those who would harm us and those that are harmless. Now, if he had said "radicalised Islam" might that have triggered off a general and counter productive witch hunt?

Personally speaking, I do not think it behoves the Leader of a Country to incite racial or religious disharmony by being too specific. We often get similar alerts here, but there is never a mention of who the perps may be because I think we all know..

Just to throw a spanner in the works, any number of nutters could perpetrate a simple but deadly attack as evidenced by the Sydney situation, and I do think Abbott was perhaps being pragmatic rather than exhibiting political correctness.

 

[Charlie Farley]

I live atm very close to a 85% Asian , 10% West indian, 5% other neighbourhood. I do alot of my small grocery shopping there, its handy.
From what i have witnessed and garnered, there is a definate split within the Asian population. My guess is about 60/40.
60% are secretly and alot,openly grateful to be here, when they see the news of what is going on in the regions their Grandparents/Parents grew up in and quite a sizeable % will genuinely discuss this with you. Ok, some will be disengenous, but to my mind not many. Of this group, they fully realise, especially the shop owners and businessmen, they would never have both the opportunities and security, back in their ' homelands ' to pursue a better way of life.
The remaining 40% it is hard to diagnose. And that is the root of the problem.
How many of them live in fear of expressing an opinion, or how many are subtly hostile, it is hard to judge.
Whether our politicians are scared to express explicitly that the problem lies with extremists of a so called Islam persuasion fearing being called racist, or whether it is of a more nefarious nature, as in scared to lose votes, we will have to wait and see, i guess.
What bothers me is this. There is a vast number of moderate Muslims in this country that don't know what to do. On the one hand, they are aware of extremism within their midst, but on the other hand, when looking to the elected whom should be expressing a clear policy and offering support to speak out, they witness an incoherent, pussy footing message.
What sort of message does that send out ?
Within a fairly closed , close knit society, such as some sections of the Asian community reflect, who the hell is going to put their head above the parapet, when they see so called ' Leaders ' fudging the truth...

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Keith with respect Bollocks. What we need is a leader with them rather than one that panders to groups that want to kill us. I think Ox is probably right that he doesn't want to risk losing votes from the supporters of Islam, so he puts all of us at greater risk by not speaking out.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Virtually all politicians' FIRST order of business is to get re-elected. Everything else is secondary to that. Actually, further down the list than secondary, come to think of it.

 

[Larry L.]

I mean like, did he have to spell it out? I suppose the difficult thing is to differentiate between those who would harm us and those that are harmless. Now, if he had said "radicalised Islam" might that have triggered off a general and counter productive witch hunt?

Personally speaking, I do not think it behoves the Leader of a Country to incite racial or religious disharmony by being too specific. We often get similar alerts here, but there is never a mention of who the perps may be because I think we all know..

Just to throw a spanner in the works, any number of nutters could perpetrate a simple but deadly attack as evidenced by the Sydney situation, and I do think Abbott was perhaps being pragmatic rather than exhibiting political correctness.

My head is spinning...

Keith...look...let's us all just TELL IT LIKE IT REALLY IS...and heaven help the hind most...so to speak...

 

[Keith]

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.

I'll make it simple for you. If the Govt raise the threat level here (which they do on a fairly regular basis), because the general population are relatively well informed, there is no mention of specifics only that there is a heightened level of likelihood that there will be a terrorist style attack.

A terrorist style attack will be the same whether or not it is perpetrated by Muslims or Ninja Turtles. Your PM would be at risk of incompetency if he warned about Muslims but failed to identify Ninja Turtles as a potential threat. Therefore it makes sense to simply warn of an attack.

Historically, if you look at any historical announcement along similar lines, you will find no mention of the anticipated perpetrators by anyone, ever.

Your collective desire to see millions of innocent people condemned out of hand by your political leaders seems sinister to say the least , unless that is your intention.

 

[David Morton]

Maybe I've been right all along.
The glass next time.
I'll come out of retirement and get current again.
It's only about five hours flying from here and five hours back.
I might need a tanker.

 

[Keith]

David, you sound like Bilbo Baggins. WTF is "there?"

Don't be politically correct, name it!

How sad is this? Christmas Day FFS! We should be opening our presents and sipping Jerez's finest...

Anyway, that's my Christmas speech done and dusted. Goodwill to All Men and all that.

What shall I do now? :shifty:

I know, switch o----------------................

 

[David Morton]

We are into our second - no - third bottle of shampoo with a Mcleods Black Pudding breakfast. I wish it could be Christmas every day ........

PS - Who TF is Bilbo Baggins?

 

[Larry L.]

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.

I'll make it simple for you. If the Govt raise the threat level here (which they do on a fairly regular basis), because the general population are relatively well informed, there is no mention of specifics only that there is a heightened level of likelihood that there will be a terrorist style attack.

A terrorist style attack will be the same whether or not it is perpetrated by Muslims or Ninja Turtles. Your PM would be at risk of incompetency if he warned about Muslims but failed to identify Ninja Turtles as a potential threat. Therefore it makes sense to simply warn of an attack.

Historically, if you look at any historical announcement along similar lines, you will find no mention of the anticipated perpetrators by anyone, ever.

Your collective desire to see millions of innocent people condemned out of hand by your political leaders seems sinister to say the least , unless that is your intention.

What was getting at was this: If a radical Muslim terrorist group makes a threat - identify them as such...if a radical black militant group makes a threat - identify them as such...if a radical group of Catholic Nuns makes a threat - identify them as such...and so on. IOW what I'm saying is, when specifics are known be specific. TELL IT LIKE IT IS.

'Same should be the case when "leaders" refer to events. The Ft. Hood massacre wasn't "workplace violence"...it was a terrorist attack. N. Korea didn't commit "internet vandalism" when it hacked Sony and made physical threats - it committed a terrorist act.

'Hope that clears the fog a bit...if not, well... :shifty:

 

[Jack]

HEY, Merry Christmas Larry!

 

[Larry L.]

'Same in your direction, Jack!

(I'm going to my room now...

 

[Larry L.]

PS - Who TF is Bilbo Baggins?

Assuming you're not just putting us on:

Bilbo Baggins is/was a "Hobbit". He is/was the main protagonist in the movie "The Hobbit".

 

[Keith]

What was getting at was this: If a radical Muslim terrorist group makes a threat - identify them as such...if a radical black militant group makes a threat - identify them as such...if a radical group of Catholic Nuns makes a threat - identify them as such...and so on. IOW what I'm saying is, when specifics are known be specific. TELL IT LIKE IT IS.

'Same should be the case when "leaders" refer to events. The Ft. Hood massacre wasn't "workplace violence"...it was a terrorist attack. N. Korea didn't commit "internet vandalism" when it hacked Sony and made physical threats - it committed a terrorist act.

'Hope that clears the fog a bit...if not, well... :shifty:

Well I'm glad your answer was not in the least patronising Larry and thank you for clearing that up.

Quick question: Please describe a "radical Muslim" for me? Or perhaps, for thickos like me, how do I tell a radical Muslim from a non radical Muslim?
I'm not being disingenuous but trying to imagine what would happen, for example, if someone said that "radical Christians" were on the rampage and we should all be watchful..

Do you see my dilemma?

One way of doing it I suppose is to say that "We are raising the terrorist alert status to Severe because radical Muslims are planning something nasty. You can tell a radical Muslim because he wears a skull cap and has a beard."

That is what you are asking political leaders to do; it's an untenable situation, and it's not political correctness at all that prevents them from announcing exactly that. Supposing he's a "white" convert? There's plenty of them that look just like you... What if they shave off their beards and wear a baseball cap?

Surely it's best to raise people's awareness to the possibility of an impending attack and then people will (hopefully) focus on "suspicious activity" rather than nationality or garb.

I rather suspect that there is a move to paint all Islam as radical and therefore a threat, but have the people that think that way got any answers? I would think, no.

 

[David Morton]

Larry,
Hobbits and similar nonsense do not really figure in my psyche.
Dave M