Sunday 14 August 2016

Your "Rights" end when they impinge on someone else!

Political correctness is worse than a bad joke.  Just search the term in reference to any of the "noisy" movements/groups and you will get the idea.

There was a time when being "PC" was considered necessary to curb the trend in so-called "hate speech" and other malicious verbal attacks.  The argument is simple.  The target's perception of statements was the important part, rather than any implied or intended nature by the source. That's great.... it *should* work.

I'll avoid the obvious arguments about "PC zealots", etc.

What has PC to do with "Rights" ?

Here's the problem.  The bulk of the western countries (just the "West" hereafter) have entrenched political correctness and related "protections" in Law.  That includes Legal protection of individual's Rights in the face of nonphysical attacks.  Critically, that protection is largely without exception.  So how does this become a problem?  When people and groups use these "protections" to disguise attacks on others.

When people and groups say that they are experiencing an "attack on XYZ" in response to not receiving special treatment, THAT is a perversion of the intent of the Law.  What they are saying is that they should have Laws enacted or changes in existing Laws to "protect their Rights".

But what "Rights"?

Now we have a problem.... because the "Rights" they claim are needed would inherently impact or remove the Rights of those they claim are attacking them.  That "claim" is highly dubious since the "attacks" usually are of forms of behaviour or speech that they claim are somehow harmful to them.

Their solution?  Revoke the Rights of the group or people they claim are the offenders.  Most sane people would say that if there are existing Laws to protect from these attacks, the logical course would be to engage Law enforcement to take action.  Yes, that would work, except that this is not logical and engaging the Law would run counter to their objective. Why?  Because in most of the West there are also Laws about defamation, libel, slander and misuse of the Law. Their claim would be tested in a court of Law, and almost certainly thrown out.  But why?  They are raising a furore about something that only exists in their heads, not reality.

So, if going to court and using the current Laws is counter to their objective, what is their objective?

I'm drawing a subjective assessment of news over the past decade, and so it could be wrong, but I don't believe so....

They want to have the Laws changed and new ones enacted to explicitly change the nature of the country and its legal system to favour them over others.  Yes.  I believe that they want their "Rights" to be extended to such extent that if you do not agree, then you are wrong and your Rights are less important than theirs.


How does political correctness get entangled in this mess?  People in the West have generally become too forgiving and too inclined to back away from confrontation.  Sure, there are exceptions, but most people will try to help.  When faced with outright hatred and vehement diatribes, we have been conditioned by decades of enforced PC behaviour to try to calm the situation or just not add to the vitriol that is being spewed forth.  So we become meek.  We ignore, yes ignore, the hate speech being fired at us so we can "listen to their grievances calmly"..... because that is what we're supposed to do... right?

What just happened?

We let someone spew forth a stream of violent and unforgiving hate speech, and we didn't slam them down for it?

Picking a random group previously targeted as an example.  Let's say we witness a violent verbal attack about the racial background on a recent immigrant.  What do we do?  At the very least, we will stand as a witness in any ensuing court case.  At the most, we may spring to their defence and interject to counter the abuse.  Ok, that may only apply in a perfect world, but there are still good people who do that sort of thing in the right way (not just for a headline).

But what happened when someone abuses someone by CLAIMING that said someone has somehow offended them to such a degree that they (the attacker) feel threatened?  They seem to get away with it time after time.  Just watch the news.  How many times do we see this?  Violence being ignored for fear that any reaction will be met with CLAIMS that the offenders are actually the victims....

Rather than start a flame war about the specifics, I've left out the groups in question, but you should note that this tactic of claiming to be fighting to "defend their Rights" while simultaneously trying to strip others of theirs is not unique to one group.  There are better examples than the "immigrant" one, but if I used them, then I'd be accused of attacking group X or group Y.

We've been so passive and so dedicated to being PC that we no longer have the stomach for it.  We will need to if we are not to be crushed out of existence.

The bottom line is simple.  YOU have Rights.  I have Rights.  YOUR Rights END where they impinge on MINE!  (And vice versa of course.)

So, the next time you hear someone sprouting a diatribe, listen to check if their "claims" would in effect remove someone else's Rights.

Footnote: I know I'm not the first to say any of this. Google it...