Concessions for Multiculturalism.

[Lakemonster]

Stuff like the following makes me very dissapointed. Why is it that when other cultures come to join the Western world..... that Westerners have to play the apologists?
"PCism" is turning into a joke.
[b]Making a pig's ear of defending democracyBy Mark Steyn(Filed: 04/10/2005)A year and a half ago, I mentioned in this space the Florentine Boar, a famous piece of porcine statuary in Derby that the council had decided not to have repaired on the grounds that it would offend Muslims. Having just seen Looney Tunes: Back in Action, in which Porky Pig mentions en passant that Warner Bros has advised him to lose the stammer, I wondered if for the British release it might be easier just to lose the pig.Alas, the United Kingdom's descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," he said. That's all, folks, as Porky Pig used to stammer at the end of Looney Tunes. Just a little helpful proscription in the interests of tolerance and acceptance.And where's the harm in that? As Pastor Niemöller said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore.And aren't we all? When the Queen knights a Muslim "community leader" whose line on the Rushdie fatwa was that "death is perhaps too easy", and when the Prime Minister has a Muslim "adviser" who is a Holocaust-denier and thinks the Iraq war was cooked up by a conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews, and when the Prime Minister's wife leads the legal battle for a Talibanesque dress code in British schools, you don't need a pig to know which side's bringing home the bacon.A couple of years ago, when an anxious-to-please head teacher in Batley was banning offensive "pig-centred books", Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain commented that "there is absolutely no scriptural authority for this view. It is a misunderstanding of the Koranic instruction that Muslims may not eat pork." Mr Bunglawala is a typical "moderate" Muslim - he thinks the British media are "Zionist-controlled", etc - but on the pig thing he's surely right. It seems unlikely that even the exhaustive strictures of the Koran would have a line on Piglet.So these little news items that pop up every week now are significant mostly as a gauge of the progressive liberal's urge to self-abase and Western Muslims' ever greater boldness in flexing their political muscle. After all, how daffy does a Muslim's willingness to take offence have to be to get rejected out of court? Only the other day, Burger King withdrew its ice-cream cones from its British restaurants because Mr Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe, after a trip to the Park Royal branch, complained that the creamy swirl on the lid resembled the word "Allah" in Arabic script. It doesn't, not really, not except that in the sense any twirly motif looks vaguely Arabic. After all, Burger King isn't suicidal enough to launch Allah Ice-Cream. But, after Mr Akhtar urged Muslims to boycott the chain and claimed that "this is my jihad", Burger King yanked the ice-cream and announced that, design-wise, it was going back to the old drawing-board.Offence is, by definition, in the eye of the beholder. I once toured the Freud Museum with the celebrated sex therapist Dr Ruth, who claimed to be able to see a penis in every artwork and piece of furniture in the joint. Yet, when I suggested one sculpture looked vaguely like the female genitalia, she scoffed mercilessly. Likewise, Piglet is deeply offensive and so's your chocolate ice-cream, but if a West End play opens with a gay Jesus, Christians just need to stop being so doctrinaire and uptight. The Church of England bishops would probably agree with that if, in their own misguided attempt at Islamic outreach, they weren't so busy apologising for toppling Saddam.When every act that a culture makes communicates weakness and loss of self-belief, eventually you'll be taken at your word. In the long term, these trivial concessions are more significant victories than blowing up infidels on the Tube or in Bali beach restaurants. An act of murder demands at least the pretence of moral seriousness, even from the dopiest appeasers. But small acts of cultural vandalism corrode the fabric of freedom all but unseen. Is it really a victory for "tolerance" to say that a council worker cannot have a Piglet coffee mug on her desk? And isn't an ability to turn a blind eye to animated piglets the very least the West is entitled to expect from its Muslim citizens? If Islam cannot "co-exist" even with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice-cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society? As A A Milne almost said: "They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace/ Her Majesty's Law is replaced by Allah's."By the way, isn't it grossly offensive to British Wahhabis to have a head of state who is female and uncovered?I doubt whether the Post Office will be in any rush to issue another set of Pooh commemorative stamps, or the BBC to revive Pinky and Perky. Forty years ago, Britain's Islamic minority didn't have the numbers to ban Piglet and change the Burger King menu. Now they do. What will be deemed "unacceptable" in the interests of "tolerance" in 20 or even five years' time? It has been clear since July 7 that the state has no real idea what to do to reconcile the more disaffected elements of its fastest-growing demographic. But at some point Britons have to ask themselves - while they're still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely - how much of their country they're willing to lose. The Hundred-Acre Wood is not the terrain on which one would choose to make one's stand, but from here on in it is only going to become more difficult.[/b]

[Soup]

[quote name='Lakemonster'][b]Alas, the United Kingdom's descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.[/b][/quote]
This sort of thing happends because this is a time of awkwardness.  People do not want to offend anyone, and will go out of their way to accomplish that.  People know this and exploit it.  It's not because they are actually offended (<-- Unfair generalization), but because they have the power to do so.
In my town there is a large aboriginal population.  Back in the day they were called "indians" but they found this "offensive" and had it changed, and rightly so for they are not from India.  But this has caused some confusion because they also find the word "aboriginal" "offensive".  They have been called indians, native, aboriginals, and first nations.  Now why do they find these words so offensive?  They were never intended to be offensive yet they find them so.
Even though these words are considered racist when said by the "white man" (<-- racist name calling) it is perfectly fine for them.  There is the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association (SIGA) which controls all the native casinos in Saskatchewan.  It's pretty much like when black people call eachother "nigger".  I'm not sure why they would use that when it was an intentionally racist word, but hey, not my problem.
Saskatoon, my home town, has a rather high crime rate and it IS because of the aboriginal youth.  Now, that seems racist and stereotypical in itself but it is statistically true.  There's nothing I, nor anyone else can do to change these stereotypes except for the stereotyped themselves.
I had a very multiculteral upbringing.  My mother's best friend since I was 5 is Malaysian.  Over the years more people have been added to my mom's circle of friends.  She is the only white woman in the group.  They are all very good people.  Even my Godmother isn't white, she's native.  Last year at my cousin's wedding, her whole family came down and it was a smash!  I loved just sitting down and talking with them, hearing hunting stories, telling joke, and talking about the old times.
One of my highschool teacher's was aboriginal and he was very open and honest with his native views.  Someone asked him if he found it offensive when people called his people indians, to which he replied 'no'.  He said the is an indian according to the Canadian government because it says so on his treaty card.  He was one of my favourite teachers.  He told us this story of when he met his in-laws for the first time.  So he puts on the thickest native accent he could and played up the stereotype to the full extent...here's the kicker...his inlaws are white.
I'm not racist, I have no reason to be.  I enjoy other cultures...why else would i smoke a hookah?

[Lakemonster]

Some very damn good points there.
To clear the air. Im not a racist either......... I just dont believe in altering my culture for the sake of another.
All the stuff like what is in the article is just being "gripey". No one is trying to fry up Piglet and force feed it to any of the Muslims in the offices.
I guess it would be like.. say. me being a Christian... mounting a cause to have all "stars and moons and other symbols seen used for pagan, witchcraft and occult" to be offensive. and have them removed from all public areas..... even if there was no relation. ( I actually am not offended by these things....... believe what you will as far as Im concerned.)
This trend could get to be very intrusive to Western culture.
What would happen if tailgate BBQ's at games became taboo from Muslims being offended by the smell of bratwurst cooking? (for instance)
[quote]People do not want to offend anyone, and will go out of their way to accomplish that.  People know this and exploit it.  It's not because they are actually offended (<-- Unfair generalization), but because they have the power to do so.[/quote]
that pretty much nails it.... and thats why I personally think that government agencies and lawmakers should not even hear out some of this kind of stuff. My freedoms of culture should not be whittled away at for the sake of another to take a "higher seat".

[Soup]

There was an issue in Saskatoon of an man of high aboriginal status said that Jews were a disease and Hitler was right in "cleansing the earth".  He was claiming that it was said in a private conversation between him and another person despite it being at a filmed conference on native issues.  As a result of his views he had his Order of Canada medal taken away.  He was awarded this medal for bravery in battle, one of Canada's highest honors.  This stuck me as odd because his aquisition of the medal had nothing to do with any sort of positive feelings towards the Jewish community, but rather for his action in war.  If he believes that Jews are evil, let him be guilty of that, but that medal was for a reason and should not have been removed.

[Aggroman]

Until you or I are actually forced to make a single concession due to
the religious views of any ethnic group I don't think anyone's free
choice to avoid offending someone is in any way an infringment on our
"freedom" "culture" or the life of our first born.

When that day comes, I'll be throwing stones through Parliament's
window whether they're telling me I can't wear my Piglet pijamas in
public or wear an inverted crucifix around my neck (neither of which
I'm inclined to do, btw .... )

In response to Mr. Steyn's (quite a racist himself though I'm sure none
here are) little diatribe, I'd simply like to ask, "who gives a *$)#?

Isn't it funny how the small-minded, conservative dolts from various
cultures always manage to be at loggerheads, whereas the laid-back,
humanistic types can get-along and learn from one another?

People of Mr. Stein's bent who grow up in the Middle East write similar
diatribes about how their own freedoms are threatened by the insidious
influence of Western liberalism.  Same (#&@, different pile.

[Soup]

I was searching my favourite news website and came across this:
[url="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17027882-13762,00.html"]http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17027...2-13762,00.html[/url]
[b]"British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims"[/b]
"We live in a multicultural society and the traditions and symbols of one community should not be obliterated just to accommodate another," Mr Mahmoud said.
"I doubt many Muslims would be seriously offended by piggy banks."

[Aggroman]

Had a similar experience while working on a cruise ship.

During the Christmas season there are a lot of jews onboard, many of
whom complain bitterly about Christmas carols and even the word
"Christmas".

To keep them happy, "Merry Christmas" became "Happy Holidays" and they stopped playing carols. 

I think it's stupid, no question.  But I don't really think it's an infringement on my freedom.

[Soup]

Once again, from [url="http://www.fark.com/"]my favourite news site, comes another bit of PC craziness.  This time, from London.
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4398680.st"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ndon/4398680.st[/url][/url] m://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/...398680.st m
[b]A decision to call Christmas lights "Winter Lights" in south London has been condemned as showing a "total lack of respect" for Christians.[/b]

[Lakemonster]

Hell........
They are CHRISTMAS carols. All this stuff developed from the celebration of Christmas. No need to change the name... if it offends. then do the facsit thing and eliminate it completely instead of letting a factor be two faced about it.
It sucks that people are making a time of good will into something to complain and whine about...... it makes people divided where it used to briugn them together.
Now we just have more hostility........
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go put out my "F*ck Kwaanza" sign.

[Aggroman]

Actions like this should be expected from a piece of #(*$ company like Royal Caribbean...

What really gets me upset are incidents in which someone's freedom of speech is held hostage by his or her employer.

Take the John Rocker incident.  Here's a guy who, on his own time,
gave an interview and made some ignorant comments about Asians, blacks,
homosexuals, etc.

The guy was forced to apologize, threatened with being fired, made to
undergo psychological treatment... I mean this is a joke.  Rocker
may be a racist idiot, but I believe he has the right to express his
views publicly.  This is when political correctness crosses the
line.

If Royal Caribbean doesn't want to play CHristmas carols, on the other hand, it's no skin off my asss....