15.2.07

Political Correctness: Britain's undoing

A few weeks ago a Muslim woman refused to shake Met police chief Ian Blair's hand on religious grounds. The incident took place in an official ceremony held by the Metropolitan police in which Blair was meeting new recruits. The chorus of enablers was quick on the gun, splashing all over the internet and the media that the woman's action was perfectly legitimate. The argument that no one should be forced to disregard mandates of the religion of its choosing won the day.

More recently a heated debate arose as to whether or not Church leaders in Britain were correct in objecting to give children in adoption to gay couples through agencies run, controlled or closely associated to the Church. But here the chorus or enablers was against the stance taken by religious authorities for allowing for such a thing to happen would be akin to discriminating the gay community.

I am by no means an advocate of the Church, having said that I just can't believe the alleged moral high ground that some pretend to hold on this matter. Hypocritically gay rights advocates argue that what moves them is the welfare of the child when in fact had that principle ruled their actions the Church's position would be easily understood: for the basis upon which Christian faith is built does not contemplate same sex unions as holy or normal in pretty much the same way Muslim devouts consider Western conducts. Why should one stance be permitted and applauded and not the other? Or better yet why not roundly condemn or glee about both? And the answer seems to spring from a rather sterile field called political correctness. See telling a Muslim woman that living in a Western society comports adopting certain practices is politically incorrect but the gay bashing of Church hierarchs that will most likely result in condemning some children to a lifetime of uncertainty is not. Does this make any sense?

Then UNICEF published a report a couple of days ago about the state of children. Naturally the benchmark against which this country is compared to is that of industrialized nations. In the group of 21 nations against which it was compared Britain fared last and again a thunderous chorus of surprise was uttered from the four corners of the country by analysts, politicians, social workers, the media, etc. Any person reasonably familiar with Britishness will know that children in this country are, quite simply, out of control. They do what they please, they talk back, curse, hurl abuse, offend and disrespect and that is when they are not binge drinking, smoking, having sex or getting wasted with drugs. But of course this nation of posturers will be hard pressed to admit that, so the UNICEF got to round things up for them. At the heart of this issue IMHO is the same problem I have just pointed: political correctness. Parenting is just not on for most and of course little can be expected from kids that more often than not grow up alien to proper moral and ethical guidance and worse of all lacking love. Discipline can not be imposed by absent parents, neither the kids will tolerate it. Correcting the issue is very simple; it takes love and discipline but see disciplining is politically incorrect, so the establishment has come up with a novel idea to tackle this: let us engage with the children, let us know what they feel and how they think this can be right. Perhaps none of them are aware of the fact that children adolesce common sense...

2 comments:

FeathersMcGraw said...

Seems that nobody in the western world can discipline their children anymore all because in the name of relativism and tolerance! Well said Alek. Good to see you writing again,

Cheers,

Aleksander Boyd said...

Well Feathers, sometimes I really doubt the much prostituted argument about these being 'advanced societies' full of 'educated and civilised' folks. If the price to pay for becoming a member of such a selected group is to renounce to one's capacity to fend off fostered stupidity in the sake of political correctness then we rather remain 'uncivilised,' wouldn't you agree?