Tagged: row Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Paul Hurst 5:51 pm on October 23, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , conservative, god, griffin, homosexuality, jan, liberal, moir, , question, racism, row, time,   

    Bullied by the anti-bullies 

    Strange things have been happening recently in liberal circles, have you noticed?

    Yesterday, we had the Anti-Fascist’s ‘protecting democracy’ by demonstrating as an individual chose to use their right of free speech on BBC Television and a few days before that, over 22,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission regarding Jan Moir’s admittedly untimely comments surrounding the death of Stephen Gately.  Yes, it seems that anyone who dares to say anything that doesn’t sound like anything else being said (at the time), better watch their back…

    I’m sure the liberals won’t like this post either.  After all, it sounds like I’m anti-gay or racist (or both) just by talking about this, so what should I expect?

    Will I be heckled and hounded on social networking websites?  ‘How dare he say what he said!  What kind of uneducated ignoramus is he?’ #getridofhim.

    Will they express their insult and disgust, maybe demand an apology or arrange a protest, after all regardless of my intent, they have taken offence.

    Will any protest be violent and vandalistic on both sides of the police line?

    Strange things have been happening recently in liberal circles, have you noticed?

    Since when did we live in a country that only allows freedom of speech to those who say only what we want them to?  Since when did we live in a country that announces everybody’s equality although some are more equal than others based upon what they believe in?  And since when did we live in a country where it’s acceptable do what’s wrong to protest for what public opinion thinks may be right?

    I’m not Homophobic, I’m not racist but surely democracy is only democracy when it protects the rights of everybody, not just the ‘liberal elite’.  Some don’t agree with a homosexual lifestyle, some believe that multiculturalism has its dangers.  Does that mean they shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as those who believe otherwise?

    What’s so ‘tolerant and fair’ about a society that demands apologies from people who’s opinions differ?  Come to think about it, what’s so liberal about that either?  Aren’t we in danger of just polarising to the other extremes?

    Surely our society works best when people can say what they think and then those who listen can have their chance too.  Are we not sometimes too quick to take offence?  Aren’t we quick to start inquisitions and character assassinations for anyone who isn’t ‘liberal enough’ for our liking?

    Someone recently linked to the alpha homepage on twitter with this comment:  Don’t forget to vote ‘no’ on this poll.  The question was, ‘is there a God?’.

    I’m sick of being told what I have to think, not just to be popular but to be accepted.  And why should anyone be branded a fool or homophobic racist if they talk about sexuality and race whilst holding an opinion that differs from the left-wing, ‘do-gooders’?  Shouldn’t democracy afford everybody (regardless of sexuality, religion or race) the right to speak and be heard?

    I don’t have to believe what anybody tells me,  I can listen to liberals and conservatives alike.  I can make my own mind up without anybody protesting or complaining whether I want them to or not.  I can reason and speak for myself.

    I clicked ‘Yes’


    Advertisements
     
  • Paul Hurst 3:49 pm on May 18, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: apology, commons, costs, , house, martin, michael, money, , , repentance, , row, sack, sacked, sackings, services, tax, taxes   

    Sorry seems to be the ‘easiest’ word to say… 

    As the MP’s gather in the House of Commons to hear the Speaker of the House apologise, what should we make of the contrition shown by so many of our elected officials?

    The speaker of the house, Michael Martin isn’t just ‘sorry’.  He’s ‘profoundly sorry’ but would all of these honourable individuals be sorry if they had not been caught with their hands in our cookie jar?  To express sorrow after an event can be quite natural.  Sometimes we all make mistakes, some of which may require an apology.  but sometimes ‘sorry’ isn’t enough.

    Without sounding too religious,  repentance is sometimes requred when mistakes are made.  It isn’t just good enough to talk about how we feel, we have to talk about what we are going to do about it.

    Its also commonplace in the UK for the public to be quick to demand heads to roll.  People bay for blood, they require resignations and somehow feel that these actions will somehow right any wrongs, especially when ‘sorry’ is clearly not enough.  However more job losses and resignations only contribute to the credit crunch rather than restoring public faith in public services.

    Surely sometimes, its better to move forward with repentant individuals, who recognise their mistakes.  Isn’t it better to allow people who are ‘profoundly sorry’ to contine in office if only just to resolve their wrongs?  A new brush may indeed sweep clean however what good is it if some things are merely swept under the carpet?

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel