Tag Archives: thought

Political Correctness vs Democracy


Today we are urged to pause and ponder the sacrifices of those who have gone before us. It occurred to me that our soldiers fought a war with weapons (of which type it isn’t politically correct to mention by name) to stop a dictatorial regime (whose name isn’t politically correct to mention), who’s leader disarmed the race of people (who we don’t want to offend by mentioning) by registering and licensing their weapons (which we don’t want to mention for fear of offending anyone) prior to confiscation. Once that State held a monopoly on weapons it was easy for it to accomplish its ‘cleansing.’ In fact, the twentieth century saw eight major genocides preceeded by civilian disarmament rid the world of over 150 Million civilian lives.  During the World Wars, we realized that protecting innocent lives from genocide (can we mention that?) was a duty, and our brave citizens stepped up and sacrificed their lives for what we, collectively, believed.

I now wonder in this day of political correctness if there is anything we are willing to fight for. Sixty years later, in a bold denial of history, the United Nations is pushing a global Small Arms Treaty in the name of peace that will disarm civilian populations and leave a monopoly of firepower in the hands of the State – and criminal thugs (or is that redundant?) Sometimes Remembrance Day is a reminder of all we’ve forgotten.

~Keith Linton~

The above letter was written by a friend of mine in honour of Remembrance Day and submitted to several major newspapers across the country.  Unfortunately, it never made it to print.  I’m posting it here not just because it’s an excellent letter, but because it touches on so many points.  As much as I’d like to delve into what I think of the UN and the idea of civilian disarmament, today I’m going to focus on political correctness.  I think this letter is a beautifully satirical representation of what being PC has done to our society.

To put it quite bluntly, I think that political correctness is one of the biggest threats to democracy in our world today.  But, ironically, it’s not politically correct to discuss political correctness.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, allow me to take a step back and define “political correctness”.  It has its roots in Marxism-Leninism and has been in regular use since the 1960s.  However, it didn’t become “fashionable” until the 1990s when its use exploded.  The term “politically correct” was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1936, where it is defined as: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.  

In this age of “emotional enlightenment” when everyone is encouraged to express their feelings, we have become so oversensitive to causing offense to others, that our society has almost ground to a halt.  Nobody is willing to make the difficult decisions anymore because to do so is to guarantee that somebody somewhere will have their feelings hurt.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned with other people’s feelings, but political correctness has gone way too far.  What began as an attempt to minimize social offense against certain minority/underprivileged groups, has evolved into a form of thought control and social engineering.  

Wait a second, did I say “thought control”? Yes, I did.  Political correctness doesn’t just impact the way we speak, it also affects the way we think.  When we are constantly thinking about whether or not we “should” be saying something, it changes how we think in general.  Instead of focussing on the ideas, we become focussed on the language being used to share those ideas.

Also, as much as our PC-trained minds tend to protest the fact, it’s no secret that some special interest groups are more equal than others, and that all special interest groups are more equal than the average citizen.  So, now we’re not just arguing over language, we’re also arguing over whose offended feelings take precedence in the PC battleground that we’ve created.

And while we’re busy arguing about whether or not the language is correct or whose feelings were hurt the most, the ideas get lost in the confusion.  Without the ideas, our society becomes stuck in an endless loop, forever arguing over words and feelings instead of moving forward with a purpose.  Most people are oblivious to this phenomenon, but there are many who are not only aware of it, they have no qualms about using it to their own advantage (this is where the “social engineering” part comes into play)

Vocal special interest groups hoard funding and push agendas in the name of some politically correct theme, playing on people’s fears and emotions.  They do this knowing it will take a brave soul to speak out against their cause.  After all, who would argue for greater privacy in the face of the scourge of child pornography? Who would argue for more freedom in the battle against “terrorism?” Who will push for gun rights even as deadly gang wars are waged on our streets?

It is the favoured tactic of the manipulator to frame her cause in such a way that her detractors, with their often insightful arguments, risk an affront to the PC Gods. It doesn’t matter that those detractors may be right – political correctness has become a weapon.

So what does the letter I quoted above have to do with all of this?  It all comes down to the line, “I now wonder in this day of political correctness if there is anything we are willing to fight for.”

Fear of social censure is no less damaging to a populace than fear of government/police retribution.  We, as a society, have become unwilling to voice our opinions for fear of offending people. We are unwilling to fight for what we believe in because we have been taught that our ideals must always be secondary to the feelings of others.  In that fear, we are no longer able to openly discuss the issues that impact our society.  When we cannot openly discuss an issue, it can never be solved. 

How long can we survive as a society when the important issues are ignored and swept under the rug?  And how can we claim to live in a democracy when the people are unwilling and/or unable to speak their mind?

The puzzle starts to make sense


Michael Bryant is the former attorney general of Ontario and was tipped to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.  Note, I said was.  That was before he was involved in a road rage incident last week that left a 33-year old bicycle courier dead.

Bryant is perhaps best known as the author of several controversial pieces of legislation.  He’s the King of the Ban in Ontario.  Problems with aggressive dogs?  Ban dogs.  Street racing an issue?  Ban speed.  Gang crime getting you down?  Ban legal shooting sports.

I’m not going to go into the details of any of these laws.  Instead I’ll invite you to take a wander with me through some of my random thought processes:   

  • Bans of any form are nothing more than a fear response.  Period. 
  • Projection: Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. [emphasis added by Jayde]

What is Michael Bryant afraid of then?  Following on with the two points I made above, the pieces slowly start to come together. 

  • Bryant decided it was was best to ban aggressive dog breeds rather than punish the owners who don’t take responsibility for their pets.  Not too much of a leap to assume that Bryant doesn’t think he would be able to handle a more aggressive dog.  And since he can’t do it, nobody else could possibly do it either.
  • If you’re caught speeding excessively you immediately fall under the purview of the new street-racing laws in Ontario.  Your car is impounded and your license is suspended on the spot.   Perhaps Bryant has difficulties driving in a safe manner, and could only be stopped from driving this way by having is vehicle and license revoked.  Again, because it’s true for him, it must be true for everyone else.
  • Working to enact a gun ban to reduce gang crime is actually the easiest to peg out of these three examples.  Bryant is one of those types who think that owning a firearm automatically makes a person a killer.  He’s afraid that because he wouldn’t be able to control his temper/emotions and shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm, that nobody else should be trusted with one either.

Now let’s go back to the main story.  I’m not going to discuss the likelihood of a Liberal politician getting off scot-free in Liberal-dominated Ontario.  I’ll leave alone the probability that even after this incident Bryant will still go on to lead the Liberal Party.  I’m not going to go into why Bryant chose to hit the accelerator rather than the brakes with a person hanging off the side of his car.  I don’t know the details of what happened on that road, and I honestly don’t care.  It’s irrelevant. 

The key is this: Bryant was involved in a road rage incident that involved aggressive driving.  Once again, let’s take a look at two of his fears from above: an inability to drive in a safe manner or to control his temper.  Hmmmm.  Pattern? 

What’s my point?  Politicians are not immune to human emotion and psychoses, and projection is one of the most common human defense mechanisms.  So the next time you hear someone calling for any type of a ban, pause and ask yourself a couple of questions. Who and What are they really afraid of?  Is society at large really the problem?  Or are they?