web analytics

The problem with Political Correctness

“Its first and pre-eminent characteristic is that it calls for the politicisation – one might say the transformation – of life. It wants political direction of all departments from, say, children’s fiction to judicial judgments. No profession is exempt. All must meet a political test – of correct thinking and progress.”
– Peter Coleman, former Governor General of Australia

Political correctness is the result of an attempt to remove discrimination in many areas of western life. However, it’s not working. In an attempt to remove discrimination, it has resulted in increased discrimination of those who are affected by it.

Pedophilia is a good example of this. Some men have been shown to be pedophiles, preying on innocent children. Political correctness now affirms that all men have the potential of being pedophiles. No man can be a teacher of children unless he’s accompanied at all times by a woman. A man can not sit next to a child on an airplane unless there is a woman present who is also sitting next to the child, and if an unaccompanied child is placed next to a man by airline staff, it is the man who is ordered to then go find another seat. If he makes a fuss, he’s likely to be kicked off the plane. Political correctness, in an attempt to prevent abuse of children, states that all men are pedophiles. By trying to prevent discrimination and abuse of children, it creates more discrimination of an even more abusive nature.

Children who commit violence is another example of political correctness, which includes, of course, violence committed against children. Political correctness states that children are not responsible for their actions until around the age of 18. The legal system is designed to slap children on the wrists for actions of violence that would result in adults being imprisoned. The side effect of preventing children from being punished for their actions is that families are not allowed to punish children either.

Children can have their parents imprisoned for child abuse if they smack the child for doing something wrong. And recently, a 16 year old girl in Auckland was given advice by her high school that if she didn’t like how she was being treated by her mother who gave her ‘unfair’ curfews (home by 11pm) then she could take her parents to court and ‘divorce’ herself from them. The court agreed, and handed custody of the girl over to an older sister who wouldn’t ‘abuse’ the girl by giving her unfair curfews.

Political correctness blames society in general for many of the problems within society, and ensures the avoidance of individual responsibility. Even adult criminals, while being thrown into prison for their actions, are given a lifestyle of luxury because of political correctness. All the comforts of home, because their rights have to be protected… If they are beaten up by other prisoners or even prison staff because of their violent nature, then they can go to court for financial compensation for their ill-treatment in prison.

Political correctness, by ensuring avoidance of responsiblity, only reinforces the behaviour that it’s trying to correct.

When people are not punished appropriately for their actions, especially children, and their victims are instead punished for either defending themselves or trying to instil discipline, then the attempt to prevent child abuse only reinforces in the child the attitude that they can get away with it. No effective punishment will come his way, and anyone that tries to stop his violent behaviour will themselves be punished for child abuse. What more incentive is needed for the child to continue violent behaviour? Any behaviour that is not punished is interpreted as being encouraged…

Political correctness teaches the selfish and disrespectful that they can continue doing whatever they want to do, because ‘they’re not responsible’.

So who is responsible? If it’s the parents of violent children, then why are they punished for trying to discipline their children? Parents who discipline their children risk having their children taken away from them, and charged with child abuse. If the legal system is responsible, why are they reinforcing the rights of the child over the rights of the parents? Surely that’s only to the detriment of both the child and the family?

Political correctness tries to protect those who it deems as being ‘at risk’, but in the process it creates the perception that everyone else are criminals who can’t be trusted.

Men can’t be trusted to sit next to an unaccompanied child, or to teach children without being accompanied by a woman. Parents can’t be trusted to let children do whatever they want without punishment, and are considered criminals for even thinking about disciplining their children.

Any debate on political correctness is often seen as questioning the foundations of anti-discrimination. If you’re against political correctness, then you must be for discrimination, child abuse, etc etc. It’s this kind of ridiculous attitude and perception that stifles the creation of effective policies, because any suggestions to change the system are shouted down as wanting to discriminate.

A person wanting to change a stupid policy doesn’t make them into a person wanting to discriminate, except in the eyes of those who believe that the stupid policy is actually a good one. (And then we can ask ourselves a really simple question – if a person believes a stupid policy is good, does that make them a stupid person?)

Racism. There’s another interesting case of political correctness. Racism is taboo – if you’re white. If you’re a non-white, then any discrimination against whites is not considered racist by proponents of politically correct anti-racism. Reverse racism by minorities is tolerated and even accepted, and certainly very rarely punished, because of how much they’ve been affected by white racism in the past. It’s ok for asians to employ only asians, for example, but it’s certainly a violation of the anti-discrimination laws for whites to employ only whites.

My own philosophy is to treat people according to their needs, and by their actions. Not by the colour of their skin, nor by their gender. Each violation of society’s laws needs to be taken into account as a separate violation and treated accordingly. And yet my beliefs, according to the anti-racists and politically correct, is racist and politically incorrect.

Men should not be punished for being men, simply because a few men engage in pedophilia. Families should not be punished for trying to raise a responsible and respectful member of society by having their children taken away from them, or by being imprisoned for child abuse. Prisoners should not be rewarded with a luxurious lifestyle and financial compensation for violating the rights of others. People should not be treated or receive benefits according to the colour of their skin, but instead for the value that they individually bring to society.

Everyone needs to be treated according to their actions. And yet by wanting this kind of policy, by demanding equality in this multicultural society, I’m considered racist. Equality means everyone gets the same opportunities, benefits and punishments, but because non-whites often get more benefits than whites, my demands for equality is considered as racist for wanting to take something away from them.

Political correctness has its origins amongst Leninists in the Soviet Union of the 1920’s, and was created to enforce the ‘correct way of thinking’ about politics. It kept people in line with what those in power wanted them to think or say; it was a means of controlling the population.

Since then, it’s gained in popularity over the past 30 years in western countries, coinciding with civil rights and feminism campaigns, all of which were trying to remove discrimination. Feminism, of course, was all about how ‘evil and oppressing’ men are, and what we see today is a continuation of those beliefs. As a result, western culture has been moulded into a common acceptance of the power of the government and the influential minority over the common sense of the society.

Political correctness began 80 years ago as a means of defending a revolution, and is now a form of defending the continuation of governmental control over the population. Any questioning of policy is politically incorrect, and therefore frowned upon. Violations of political correctness can be punished.

Some of the more common forms of political correctness include:

  • Bureaucratic Excess – in attempting to eliminate all sources of risk, it limits freedom and overrides common sense. By creating and enforcing policies designed to avoid causing harm to people, they venture into the realms of stupidity.
  • Ideological Screening – in attempting to protect cultural rights of indigineous people or minority groups, violations of human rights occur. As an example, some educational institutes and government departments in New Zealand enforce knowledge of Maori culture before they will employ a person. Also, a woman was recently fired in New Zealand because she complained about being forced to sit at the back of a room where Maori were meeting. As a result, she was considered a troublemaker because she valued human rights and equality over cultural rights, whereas political correctness puts the Maori cultural rights above all else.
  • Overriding Human Rights – airlines preventing unaccompanied children from sitting next to men, as well as male teachers needing a woman present, show that there’s an underlying attitude in political correctness that all men are a risk to children. Definite violation of human rights, based solely on gender. So many examples abound, , of course, that they can’t be mentioned here due to taking up too much space.
  • Departures from Commonsense – a foundation of political correctness is the desire to avoid offending someone. Anyone. If even only a tiny handful of people are offended by something, then absurd policies are created that affect the entire country. The Human Rights Commission in NZ felt it reasonable that a ‘married couples’ golf tournament be banned for fear of offending single golfers. Who would really be discriminated by that? Hypersensitivity to violations of political correctness lead governments and institutions creating policies to protect themselves, often at the expense of common sense.

So what’s to be done about political correctness?

My own opinion is that politically correct policies and attitudes are being implemented to the great detriment of society. We’re seeing increased violence from children, and increased restrictions on individual freedoms. We’re seeing ridiculous proposals that limit all kinds of actions that are of benefit, because either someone might be offended or a vocal minority might be disadvantaged from it. The silent majority are also disadvantaged, but because they don’t speak out or engage in campaigns to promote their needs, they’re ignored.

I believe that for things to change, we need a political party in power that starts the ball rolling on returning common sense to society. It needs to engage in rigorous scrutiny of current policies and determine the overall benefit of such policies on society. The needs of the many need to outweigh the needs of the few, especially if the needs of the many are being ignored or disadvantaged. New policies need to be set in place that weigh the benefits to society over the benefits to a small few.

The desire to avoid offending people needs to be eliminated. People are going to be offended with something, somewhere, sometime. Deal with it. Stop pandering to the greedy, selfish and insecure motives of the few who want to avoid responsibility for their own actions, or use their differences to gain an advantage over others.

Start looking objectively at current policies, and sit up and take notice of those policies. Turn the silent majority into the VOCAL MAJORITY. Stop handing control of our destiny over to the selfish few, and start taking back control. If the vocal minority can get policies created according to their needs, then we need to start up a ‘vocal majority movement’, to get society back on track.

The University of Canterbury recently decided that their compulsory Treaty of Waitangi course for librarians wasn’t so compulsory once it was exposed to public comment. The public needs to become more aware of policies that take society away from what’s important – individual rights and freedom.

Where I see stupid policies in place that limit individual rights and freedom, I’ll talk about it in this blog. You can help too. Provide your own thoughts on it as a reply to this post. Talk about it and link to this on your own blog. Do the same thing as I do. Contact officials, discuss with them your views on how they’re disadvantaging society and the majority. Point out to the world all the violations of common sense, human rights and individual freedom that you find.

Let’s start changing things away from political correctness. Let’s become the vocal majority.

Thanks for reading! Please add your own thoughts below.

Don't forget to subscribe for new posts sent to you by email!

%d bloggers like this: