Okay, does THIS go over the limits of political correctness? Apparently the British flag is now offensive, and it must be changed.
Race fears spark St. George banWhere is all this going to end?Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
J.
Comments (6)
It won't end, ever.
For those who agonize about the Crusades and how the Christians of the time victimized Islam, ask them how the countries that have been Moslem for centuries became Moslem in the first place, when they had originally been Christian. Many of Paul's letters in the New Testament were to Christian churches in countries that were taken by the sword by Mohammed and his followers later on. Remember, the victimization card only works on people who have a conscience.
Posted by John C. | October 4, 2005 9:29 PM
Posted on October 4, 2005 21:29
I fear a breaking point - one too many 'reasonable' requests, with the implied threat of violence if the 'reasonable' request is denied, and people will look at all that's been banned to avoid causing offense - and the pot will boil and people will die.
And afterwards we'll be remorseful, but there will likely be no Muslims left to appreciate it.
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 4, 2005 9:36 PM
Posted on October 4, 2005 21:36
The fundamental problem with banning things that might offend someone is that it is quite impossible to avoid offending everyone. Furthermore, where is it written that people have a right to live their lives unoffended? There was an instance at Lucent, before I took the early retirement, when a coworker named Steve Kruep was told to remove a picture from his desk or face discipline up to firing, because a female employee had seen it and complained to an administrator that it had made her "uncomfortable". It was a photograph of his wife, taken at a beach, wearing a bikini. When last I looked, a bikini was legal attire, if a bit informal for a business office.
Posted by John C. | October 5, 2005 5:25 AM
Posted on October 5, 2005 05:25
The 'tyranny of the offended' is an odd concept, but no less valid because it makes little sense to the rational. As you say, it's quite impossible to avoid offending everyone, but it sure seems like some people have their offense sensitivity circuits turned up to max. (U comes to mind there.) I tend to distrust the attitudes and pronouncements of those who are perpetually offended.
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 5, 2005 6:57 AM
Posted on October 5, 2005 06:57
The British are getting this idiocy by the manure truck load. I used to read a British nostalgia magazine called BEST OF BRITISH (sadly, Borders doesn't stock it anymore here) and the editorials were always about some unbelieveably PC thing the government was asking for now. One summer before tourist season, they asked people to not display British flags because it might make foreign visitors feel "unwelcome." Huh? If I visit a foreign country, from Austria to Zanzibar, I'd expect them to have their national flag displayed. It's just natural.
Posted by LindaY | October 6, 2005 7:53 AM
Posted on October 6, 2005 07:53
I wonder what the tipping point will be? What will cause the appeasers and idiots like Galloway to be kicked out of office?
Great Britain was once mighty. Now it seems like some over there would like the entire country cringing in a corner, afraid of a harsh word, afraid of offending through action.
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 6, 2005 10:09 AM
Posted on October 6, 2005 10:09