Archive for February, 2009

Torquemada returns?

admin on Feb 7th 2009

It is 1478 somewhere in Spain. The heretic is suffering on the rack surrounded by the priests of the Inquisition. “Repent”, they all scream. The heretic is obdurate. “I have done nothing wrong”, she cries. “Yes you have”, the priests shout as one, “Everybody has! Repent and save yourself!”

But it is not 1478, it is 2009, an era too sophisticated for superstition and religious persecution; the heretic is Carol Thatcher and the priests are from the church of BBC management.

And now, along the corridors of the BBC, there drifts the odour of seared heretic flesh mixed with the sweet scent of self-righteousness.

Heaven, if there is one, help us.

Filed in PC | No responses yet

Carol Thatcher and That Word

admin on Feb 5th 2009

How long before a latter day Matthew Hopkins appears with the self-appointed title of Race-finder General instead of Witch-finder General? His spirit is certainly abroad and has taken up residence in the hallowed halls of the BBC.

It is now the case that the words you utter are enough to convict you - not just where, not just when, not dependent on context - but the words alone can prove you guilty of that most heinous of modern crimes – Racism.

The latest villain to be brought to arbitrary justice is Carol Thatcher. It appears that in a closed room, apparently amongst friends and colleagues, she referred to a tennis player as a ‘golliwog’. Not a nice thing to say, perhaps, but not used in a vicious or derogatory fashion. But, it had been used, and in the age of Correctness must needs be exposed and expunged. Had she referred to the man as a curly-headed twerp, she would have been greeted with a sideways glance and a comment such as “I bet you wouldn’t say that to his face”. However one of the ‘no-no’ words had been uttered and a price had to be paid, an exorcism performed.

I have heard many people today say that they know and respect Carol Thatcher and she is in no way a racist - but – she should not have said it, is wrong and must apologise. I now need someone to clarify the rules of racism to me. Nowhere does my dictionary definition include a list of words which are inherently racist and henceforward forbidden. The dictionary refers to beliefs, superiority, doctrines, hatred and the like. These definitions I understand and agree with. I also abhor them all. However, if I call someone ‘a twit’ I am not being racist – but – if I call someone ‘a religious twit’ and refuse to employ them because of it, that is a different matter. And that is the point.

We are now in the field of analysis and detailed debate, of comparative examples and strained logic. All because of a word used impulsively and without malice, but offending a group of people to whom it was not applied but who considered themselves the arbiters of good taste.

I hear the baying of hounds, the return of the McCarthy Witch Hunts, the re-opening of the Salem Witch Trials and Matthew Hopkins chuckling at the door.

Filed in PC | No responses yet