I know i talked about political correctness last time but it seems like these things keep popping up. Besides, other than old drivers who cant see properly anymore, it seems to be the only thing that the media hasn't already done to death this week.
No booze, no bed hopping, please.
The gist of the article is that a lady wants to set up a travel service which caters exclusively for women, but she has to make some sort of application to be allowed to 'discriminate'. What utter rubbish.
The problem with this is that this so called 'anti-discrimination' law is a massive infringement upon personal freedom. Why should someone not have the freedom to create their own business, and to target this at the clientele of their own choice? Its not like the woman is treating men as second class citizens, she is just producing a product which is for women.
The situations get even more ridiculous as the article goes on. A primary school had to apply to the discrimination people (whoever they are) to employ a male handler to take care of a violent pupil, because the kid would have been a danger to any woman. Thankfully for common sense, the application was successful. However, a retirement village was not allowed to set an age limit (an entirely reasonable restriction, given that they are providing cheap housing and services for old people on the pension who may struggle, not early retirees who have plenty of money). To make it that much more inconsistently stupid, a lesbian party club was allowed to have a female only event (is it a surprise the gay community gets what it wants from a discrimination council?).
So why exactly are our freedoms of association/business being limited? The representative for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission doesn't say (although the article doesn't say whether she was actually asked why or not). All she says is that "the exemption could not be granted as Ms Maitland had not provided any supporting evidence to make the limitation of a human right ''demonstrably justified'' as required by the charter"
So what human right would this be limiting anyway? The right to be involved in whatever you want, regardless of whether it is appropriate, and regardless of whether there is a similar or identical service that is available?
Obviously these laws are in place to prevent industry wide discrimination. However, when you think about it, this is a stupid idea for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Australian general and business public is neither as racist or sexist as some of these people would have you believe. Secondly, it would make absolutely no business sense. For example, if all travel companies banned men, they would be cutting out probably 95% of the market (given that many women want to travel with a male be it friend, family etc). Companies would then create businesses which did cater for men in attempt to gain a huge dominance of the market, thus providing men with a means to travel and destroying the discrimination in the process.
I can't really think how to end this to be honest. I had thought of a really good conclusion while i was writing the bit above but i forgot it. All ill say is that yet again the PC lobby has taken over something and screwed with our rights. Clearly there is ample services out there to cater for men who want to travel, and there would be regardless of these laws. The only rights being infringed upon are the rights of a woman who wants to produce a product which is not currently available, and for a very niche market.
Discrimination laws which infringe upon our rights, when they're meant to protect them. Now THATS irony for you (Alanis Morisette, take a hint).
On a side note, i wonder why insurance companies haven't been called to task for discriminating against drivers because of their sex, age and car (specifically young males with 3-door cars). I would've thought that is a genuine case of industry wide discrimination (since its applied to all across the board with no appeal), especially given it's compulsory to have insurance.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
"BBC goes potty over Humpty Dumpty" - The Age
All day I had planned to talk about an amusing email i received, which makes fun of the way in which our society often takes from the honest hardworking and gives to the criminal bludger. However, when I saw this article it just couldn't be ignored.
BBC goes potty over Humpty Dumpty
For those of you who cant be bothered to read the whole thing, apparently the good old nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty is too violent for our children. Here is the gist of the article.
"A revised version of the nursery rhyme that aired recently on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s children's channel...no longer ends with “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men/Couldn’t put Humpty together again”. Now, a crack squadron of His Majesty’s finest hard-boiled military personnel has found the recipe to "make Humpty happy again”."
It is this sort of politically correct drivel that finds me increasingly agreeing with John Howard when he talks about (or used to talk about) his removing political correctness from parliament stuff, despite disagreeing with almost everything else that he did. I would gladly accept the odd offensive comment if the result was that this sort of rubbish was kept in the bin it deserves to be in.
You could perhaps understand them not broadcasting the nursery rhyme about mother goose, given the sensitivities about smacking children as a punishment (although I am not against sensible and reasonable use of a smack as a last resort or quick thing to stop a kid grabbing something dangerous like a hot pan). However, I fail to see how Humpty Dumpty could be in any way harmful upon our children. No-one pushed him off the wall, no-one stomped on his head while he was on the ground, he did not jump off in an attempt to end his life. He fell off, the people tried to save him, but they couldn't. If anything, it serves as a warning to children that they shouldn't climb up on high walls, or else they might fall and hurt themselves.
Honestly, what brain-dead idiot has his priorities so badly warped that they spend their time targeting nursery rhymes with their politically-correct drivel. Presumably the children of these people are so protected that they have become fat lards on the couch at home, because they are too scared that their children might cop a nasty scratch while playing in the grass. I absolutely despise these people that try to push their own political agenda upon our children, particularly when they target childrens entertainment.
Take cartoons for example. Gone are the days of having cartoons simply for enjoyment, where the good guys simply escaped from the bad guys, who then went away to scheme again (and then the show would end at some point). If you see any kids show now everything has to have an educational happy ending where everybody sits down and learns a lesson, has a hug and gets some lemonade (although this will probably become a glass of 'organic' free range skinny soy milk in a biodegradable paper cup soon). I'm surprised the loony tunes are even allowed on TV anymore (those hordes of acme-armed thugs are a real blight on society :P).
It is especially infuriating that these people devote their time to this sort of nonsense, when there are much more important (or should i say actual) issues which our children should be protected from. In particular, the targeting of 'tweens' with ever increasingly sexual styles of clothing.
The writer of the article goes on to finish with the line "Thankfully, we know that would never happen here.". I cannot decide whether he is being sarcastic. I sure hope he is, because quite clearly the ridiculousness of far left political correctness is making a solid impact on our society here in Australia. Last year a primary school was reported to have banned the use of the term of mother and father, so that children of single and gay parents would not feel left out (i don't recall this ever being denied by the school). There have been many campaigns which target the historic Melbourne club for sexism because of their men only club (presumably these people also oppose the many womens only gyms, gay and lesbian only bars, although knowing what these sorts of people are like probably not). Just this week the 'Busting Out' theatre show that has 2 ladies topless has been banned from Tasmania. Honestly people, if you don't want to watch two ladies doing a topless show (which is advertised as such) then don't go, don't spoil it for everyone else who may want to see it (for the record not me, I don't really want to watch middle-aged topless women, they have to be hot :P). If something isn't appropriate for children, just don't take them. Quite simple really.
Even worse, I just saw another article on the age website which has the premise (and title) stating that it is racist to criticize the Nobel prize given to Obama. The author, Bob Ellis should be ashamed of himself. Apart from the fact that it is entirely reasonable to have a different opinion about an award, it is racist itself to assume that any white person who criticizes a black man is automatically racist, and that there is not possibly a genuine criticism. It is what is known as an oxymoron.
It is entirely reasonable to monitor and restrict some actions to prevent unreasonably offensive actions which would be 'politically incorrect'. For example, while the crime rate among immigrants may be higher per capita, it would be unreasonable to go around saying all crime is by immigrants, or that all immigrants are criminals (I stress that is a made up example, I have no idea about immigrant crime rates). However, this cannot be at the expense of our various freedoms. Unfortunately, under pressure from special interest groups (who by very nature only look after their own interests), freedom seems to be slowly losing out.
BBC goes potty over Humpty Dumpty
For those of you who cant be bothered to read the whole thing, apparently the good old nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty is too violent for our children. Here is the gist of the article.
"A revised version of the nursery rhyme that aired recently on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s children's channel...no longer ends with “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men/Couldn’t put Humpty together again”. Now, a crack squadron of His Majesty’s finest hard-boiled military personnel has found the recipe to "make Humpty happy again”."
It is this sort of politically correct drivel that finds me increasingly agreeing with John Howard when he talks about (or used to talk about) his removing political correctness from parliament stuff, despite disagreeing with almost everything else that he did. I would gladly accept the odd offensive comment if the result was that this sort of rubbish was kept in the bin it deserves to be in.
You could perhaps understand them not broadcasting the nursery rhyme about mother goose, given the sensitivities about smacking children as a punishment (although I am not against sensible and reasonable use of a smack as a last resort or quick thing to stop a kid grabbing something dangerous like a hot pan). However, I fail to see how Humpty Dumpty could be in any way harmful upon our children. No-one pushed him off the wall, no-one stomped on his head while he was on the ground, he did not jump off in an attempt to end his life. He fell off, the people tried to save him, but they couldn't. If anything, it serves as a warning to children that they shouldn't climb up on high walls, or else they might fall and hurt themselves.
Honestly, what brain-dead idiot has his priorities so badly warped that they spend their time targeting nursery rhymes with their politically-correct drivel. Presumably the children of these people are so protected that they have become fat lards on the couch at home, because they are too scared that their children might cop a nasty scratch while playing in the grass. I absolutely despise these people that try to push their own political agenda upon our children, particularly when they target childrens entertainment.
Take cartoons for example. Gone are the days of having cartoons simply for enjoyment, where the good guys simply escaped from the bad guys, who then went away to scheme again (and then the show would end at some point). If you see any kids show now everything has to have an educational happy ending where everybody sits down and learns a lesson, has a hug and gets some lemonade (although this will probably become a glass of 'organic' free range skinny soy milk in a biodegradable paper cup soon). I'm surprised the loony tunes are even allowed on TV anymore (those hordes of acme-armed thugs are a real blight on society :P).
It is especially infuriating that these people devote their time to this sort of nonsense, when there are much more important (or should i say actual) issues which our children should be protected from. In particular, the targeting of 'tweens' with ever increasingly sexual styles of clothing.
The writer of the article goes on to finish with the line "Thankfully, we know that would never happen here.". I cannot decide whether he is being sarcastic. I sure hope he is, because quite clearly the ridiculousness of far left political correctness is making a solid impact on our society here in Australia. Last year a primary school was reported to have banned the use of the term of mother and father, so that children of single and gay parents would not feel left out (i don't recall this ever being denied by the school). There have been many campaigns which target the historic Melbourne club for sexism because of their men only club (presumably these people also oppose the many womens only gyms, gay and lesbian only bars, although knowing what these sorts of people are like probably not). Just this week the 'Busting Out' theatre show that has 2 ladies topless has been banned from Tasmania. Honestly people, if you don't want to watch two ladies doing a topless show (which is advertised as such) then don't go, don't spoil it for everyone else who may want to see it (for the record not me, I don't really want to watch middle-aged topless women, they have to be hot :P). If something isn't appropriate for children, just don't take them. Quite simple really.
Even worse, I just saw another article on the age website which has the premise (and title) stating that it is racist to criticize the Nobel prize given to Obama. The author, Bob Ellis should be ashamed of himself. Apart from the fact that it is entirely reasonable to have a different opinion about an award, it is racist itself to assume that any white person who criticizes a black man is automatically racist, and that there is not possibly a genuine criticism. It is what is known as an oxymoron.
It is entirely reasonable to monitor and restrict some actions to prevent unreasonably offensive actions which would be 'politically incorrect'. For example, while the crime rate among immigrants may be higher per capita, it would be unreasonable to go around saying all crime is by immigrants, or that all immigrants are criminals (I stress that is a made up example, I have no idea about immigrant crime rates). However, this cannot be at the expense of our various freedoms. Unfortunately, under pressure from special interest groups (who by very nature only look after their own interests), freedom seems to be slowly losing out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)