Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones But Words?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. You know that saying? Goodness only knows who first came up with that.  The phrase has been around for at least 100 years and probably considerably more.

It isn’t true, of course, and we have all been hurt by words of derision, spite, jealousy and even the truth when we have seen how we may have been wrong to say or do certain things ourselves and been proved to have been naive, stupid or jut plain ignorant of the facts. We all make mistakes and we must expect to get some critisism when we do.

We try to laugh off those comments that hurt us but they do have an impact. Sometimes things are said in childhood that affect us subconciously for many years into adulthood and perhaps for all our lives. Words do have an impact.

So what if someone tells me I am a banana or a sozy twat? Should I be offended? Frankly I would find it rather amusing. What if they call me an Aussie, apart from being wrong, I would not feel it was derogatory or offensive, other than being wrongly attributed.

I remember the Falklands war and the Argentinians were referred to as Argies. It was, at that time, probably partly being used in a derogatory way but it was after all an abreviation of the word Argentinian. We talk about the French as being Frogs, the Germans as being Krauts, Americans Are Yanks and the Polish are Poles, so what is the problem with Pakistanis being called Pakis?

I understand that this is a term that was used mainly, for a time, with the intention that it would be considered derisory. It was, at that time, being used by people of limited brainpower to try to help them think they were better in some way.

Racial slurs have always been used that way and in any war or dispute there will always be a derogatory term used about the enemy when referring to them and such terms are probably used to try to convince ourselves we are better than them but that does not make the word unusable after the disagreement. Over time these terms can become friendly terms and perhaps even affectionate.  We Brits, (or should I say English?) have fought the French many times over the centuries, even though we were conquered by a Frenchman in 1066 but these days they are probably one of our greatest allies even though we continue to have disagreements and refer to them as frogs. I’m not sure what they refer to us as but I am sure they have their own pet name for us which may or may not be freindly. We did, after all, slaughter large numbers of them over the years and I’ll bet there are more than a few who still recall Agincourt and get upset about it. To be honest I feel bad about it too but times were very dfferent back then.

Couples give each other pet names, soldiers give themselves names for their regiments and others give them more derogatory names. Kids in school have names for other schools nearby and football teams even choose to have a name they are known by.

So given that it is human nature to call any other group by some sort of group name why would anyone object to being called a Paki? It is only that this was used by idiots in a way that they felt was derogatory yet it was, when used to refer to Pakistanis an accurate short form of the word Pakistani. If we are expected to assume that it is a derogatory term then the white, racist thugs have won and that would be a bad thing.

Any Pakistani should be proud of their heritage and they should be happy to be referred to as a Paki. We have so much Political Correctness around these days that it is destroying the most natural human behaviour like grouping people together and referring to them by a name.

We had several incidents reported in the media last year where someone had referred to someone else as a Paki and there was a huge fuss about it. It even included one of the royal princes. I’m not sure which one as they all look the same to me. He was referring to one of his comrades in the army and it was said in a friendly and warm way the way we might refer to a friend as a Brummie or a Southerner. It was not nasty, cruel or unkind and I would imagine the person it was aimed at considered it a warm and friendly way to be referred to. I know that I would not be offended in any way if a prince or anyone else,  spoke to me in such a way.

I am concerned that political correctness proves that the racial thugs won and that they succeeded in making something racially offensive that never was before they used it and should not be thought to be now. To the Pakistanis in England, Britain, The United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world I would say be proud of who you are and please let us forget that this term was once used by idiots in a derogatory way and let’s get on being humans again, using human traits such as referring to any groups as some phrase or another, as we always have done and always will.

There is no reason to be offended and considering such a term offensive is the only thing that makes it so. I sincerely hope nobody has been offended by anything I have said here. I would not want that to happen. My whole point is that none of these terms is offensive in it’s nature and by considering such terms offensive we reinforce the racial slurs the braindead racial thugs so desperately wanted everyone else to believe were significant.

Gagging Order Prevents news About Tiger Woods

Apparently lawyers for Tiger Woods have obtained an injunction preventing UK publishers from publishing certain information about Tiger Woods on websites and in newspapers or on TV.

It is good to know we live in a country that could support users of twitter and other websites who were able to get news out about what was happening in Iran after the disputed election result there. Meanwhile here we are prevented from talking about something as unimportant as details about…. something or other that presumably is about or in reference to Tiger Woods and whatever he has been doing.

I thought freedom of speech was something we were supposed to enjoy in this country. We are quick to criticize other countries that restrict it. Personally I couldn’t care less about what TW has been up to and wouldn’t want to publish it if I knew, but it does bother me that I am prevented from doing so.

If you want to know I expect it is all over the American media on their websites but I can’t be bothered to look myself and no doubt people who do live in freedom loving democracies are able to Tweet about it.

Personally I’d rather go and take some photographs of some unimportant buildings somewhere in the UK. Oh, I forgot. I can’t do that because I’ll get arrested for terrorism.

What is this country coming too?

Gardian Gagged – Is This Democracy?

It is sometimes hard to remember that we live in a democracy. There are plenty of examples where government appears not to listen to public opinion and does whatever it wants regardless but at least we usually know what they have done.

The Guardian is reporting that it has been prevented from writing about a question due to be asked in the Houses of Parliament by a gagging order in which somebody, or some company, has got a court to prevent the newspaper reporting on what is happening in Parliament. No matter that you elect these people to act on your behalf. It seems that a company or individual is able to prevent us knowing what is being said.

The Guardian reports that:-

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Members of Parliament are protected and can basically say whatever they want in Parliament without fear of prosecution but it does seem ridiculous that in a democracy we are prevented from knowing what they say.

Presumably we will eventually get to hear about it one way or another but this seems to stink whichever way you look at it.

** UPDATE **

The Guardian has just announced that the ban on publishing has been lifted since lawyers acting on behalf of clients have given up their attempts to prevent the reporting of Parliamentary business.

The Guardian now reports that the question to be asked in parliament is the following one from Labour MP Paul Farrelly:-

“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.”

This will be a feather in the cap of Guido Fawkes who had correctly assumed this was the question that was being blocked from publication.here