PDA

View Full Version : Political Correctness


Yak Hunt
28th May 2001, 00:08
Anybody else out there fed up with this nonsense?

Mad Pax
29th May 2001, 16:11
Yes, pig sick of it.
(Snivelling apologies to any health challenged minority farm animal that I may have offended).
As for me, I'm a right celt!


------------------
Oi got a bran' new comboine 'aarverster...

angels
29th May 2001, 16:30
Try E-mailing Tartan Gannet!!!

Grainger
29th May 2001, 17:51
YH: Takes a bit more effort to get a conversation started.

Why not give us a couple of examples of the sort of thing that's been bugging you?

tony draper
29th May 2001, 18:18
Heard a good one a few weeks ago,there's a pressure group trying to get the word History,
His story, changed to Their story, Theirstory
History is sexist.
I would take the silly buggers outside and nine them in the back of the neck. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
ps, will be watching
Simon Schama's A Thierstory of Britain, tonight :)

Tartan Gannet
29th May 2001, 22:10
Yak. I wont repeat myself, look back through old postings and you will find my many attacks on PC.

I have done one thing against PC however, apart from using my postal vote to vote Tory, and after 43 years of listening from childhood to the BBC Radio 4, (former Home Service) and BBC World Service I have shifted to Classic FM. No great deal of news coverage Im afraid, but great music, the sort of Classics an ordinary person can appreciate, NOT the discordant drivel of Messien, or Webbern, or Stockhausen so beloved of the intelligentia. Also no more PC propaganda with a hidden agenda such as "Westway", or biased news coverage with spin on the World Service. If anyone knows of a non PC news service in English Id be grateful.

Squawk 8888
30th May 2001, 03:53
Best one was the City of Toronto's decision that there are no manholes, just "access holes". Of course, most signs in work zones are too small for this term to fit, so one day on my way to work I encountered the following sign:

CAUTION- RAISED A HOLES IN ROAD

I think it was referring to our politicians :)

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Natterjack
30th May 2001, 04:13
Haha, the election campains are ok, although it does become a little annoying constantly hearing about them.

I studied 'A' Level Government and Political Studies at college, which was, on the whole, reasonably interesting, although on occasions unbelievably boring. I was lucky enough to get a good grade in the subject, so I do believe I have a good understanding of the political system, the various concepts and political parties.

Anyhow, I totally believe that Europe is essential to our economic future, and as a result believe we should most definitely join the Euro.

------------------
I spend most of my money on beer and women; the rest I just waste.

[This message has been edited by Natterjack (edited 30 May 2001).]

pigboat
30th May 2001, 04:18
Squawk, is that the same admin that refused the Barenaked Ladies permission to play City Hall?

Here, the city installed new placards on the access hole covers that said "trou d'homme."(manhole)
This was done at the request of the local alderman, for some unknown reason. One night a ratepayer, no doubt expressing his opinion of said individual, placed little stickers over "d'homme" that read "de cul," which means something else entirely. He would have put more stickers, but he had only enough spare change to buy five. :)

Davaar
30th May 2001, 05:08
B'eh Pig-la, comme en "bozziemacoo" (Baisez mon cul!).

For the English student, see Bagg's Case (1615) 11 Co. Rep. 93b; Judicial Review of Administrative Action, de Smith, Stevens, 1973, p. 137, Note 41 "..turning the hinder part of his body in an inhuman and uncivil manner" [towards the mayor] saying "Come and kiss".

Mr Prescott is not the first to suffer sordid departures from deserved political respect.
[This message has been edited by Davaar (edited 30 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Davaar (edited 30 May 2001).]

jstyles
30th May 2001, 14:00
Check this out!

The toll booths at the entrance to the UK's Mersey Tunnel were designated 'Automatic' and 'Manned' - for obvious reasons.

The authorities have just spend thousands of pounds changing the 'Manned' sign to say 'Staffed' to aviod causing offence to those PC eedjits in this world.

All this from an organisation which is trying to cut back on its running costs!!

ickle black box
30th May 2001, 14:02
Natterjack,

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Anyhow, I totally believe that Europe is essential to our economic future, and as a result believe we should most definitely join the Euro.</font>

Well, here's my sweeping statement.

I totally believe that Britain, with the 4th largest economy in the world, is unquestionably better off outside the EU. The EU isn't just financialy bad for the country, but is destroying our soverignty too.

www.democracymovement.org.uk (http://www.democracymovement.org.uk)

tony draper
30th May 2001, 14:28
HEAR HEAR!.


PS, how is it that PC though universaly despised, apart from a few chat show lovies, still thrives?, from wense does it come.

[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 30 May 2001).]

Natterjack
30th May 2001, 14:37
LOL IBB. Are you completely ignorant of the facts or just acting as though you're a little less than intelligent?

Remember: The UK has ULTIMATE power over the EU because if desired the UK could repeal (get out of) the EU. If the EU had complete power over its member states, then this wouldn't be possible.

EUROPE - THE BEST AND OUR FUTURE! :)

------------------
I spend most of my money on beer and women; the rest I just waste.

HugMonster
30th May 2001, 19:34
TG, I would agree with you as regards Webern and Stockhausen (also John Cage and a host of others) but I simply cannot accept your inclusion in that category of Messaien.

If you had ever really sunk yourself into "Transports de Joie (d'un âme ascendant vers le Seigneur voyant la gloire qui est la Sienne)" firstly you would never be able to call it "discordant" and secondly I am sure you would be able to appreciate just some of his genius.

ickle black box
30th May 2001, 20:07
Natterjack you fool. If Britain joins the common currency we can never ever leave. Repeat, NEVER EVER leave. It is foolish to think that we will ever have control over our country again.

I'm not going to type out another long thread trying to explain the reasons. I get accused of typing deadly dull political posts.

You can check out most reasons here:

www.democracymovement.org.uk (http://www.democracymovement.org.uk)

Natterjack
30th May 2001, 20:26
lol IBB, old buddy old pal. I'm not talking about the Euro. I'm taking about the UK actually being part of Europe - the EU.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree this time. I believe totally in Europe whereas you are utterly against it.

------------------
I spend most of my money on beer and women; the rest I just waste.

[This message has been edited by Natterjack (edited 30 May 2001).]

GeneralAviation
30th May 2001, 21:54
I think your youth is showing Natter. There will be no way that Britain or England can get out of Europe, nor bring back sterling once we have joined the euro. I doubt very much whether we could now. We are not the tail that wags the dog.

As for the Euro - it will cost Britain around £30billion to join, and that will come out of our taxes. Not a figure plucked out of the air, but arrived at by a respected accountancy firm. The equivalent of at least 16p on income tax. This apart from the necessary devaluation of sterling to bring it into line with a currently ailing euro.

Virtually everything would become more expensive and not just foreign goods, holidays, but also raw materials.

You may not remember the last time they tried to take us into a european currency, it caused havoc with interest rates rising to 15% and caused severe economic damage to the UK.

However, what the devil does this have to do with pc - unless you think that political correctness is eurospeke for giving the correct political answer to King Tone and Prince Gordon's ‘Say Yes to Europe’ referendum. The one where we will have to keep doing it until we get it right.

Natterjack
30th May 2001, 21:58
GA

I'm afraid you're just another of these "let's watch TV and gain a true understanding of the situation" people. I've studied the EU's impact on English Law for many months now (I'm a law student), both at 'A' Level (also when I studied 'A' Level Economics and Business) and at degree level. So please, go and research the repeal possibilities and you'll find I'm right as per usual

[This message has been edited by Natterjack (edited 30 May 2001).]

GeneralAviation
30th May 2001, 22:09
Completely wrong natterjack - never let your prejudices colour your judgement. ;)


Oh the arrogance of teens, combined with a complete lack of experience. :)



[This message has been edited by GeneralAviation (edited 30 May 2001).]

Natterjack
30th May 2001, 22:11
So prove me wrong, GA. Ok, I'll even post one of my essays regarding the EU's affect on the UK if you want. If one's essays didn't contain virtually all factual information, one wouldn't get such good grades. Hence, it would seems that I am indeed correct.

Ok, enough of the childish behaviour. Just because you have different views than me, righly or wrongly it does not warrant such an unnecessary attitude.

------------------
I spend most of my money on beer and women; the rest I just waste.

[This message has been edited by Natterjack (edited 30 May 2001).]

Send Clowns
31st May 2001, 20:12
It's nothing to do with the law, Natter. the reasons we could never leave the EU are to do with politics, and political will. Even the Conservative party wouldn't have the courage unless there was an overwhelming case for leaving that would persuade even you.

The case for closer European integration is weak, and getting weaker. No country's population has yet been persuaded that current levels of integration are desirable. What we have now has been forced by politicians against the will of their people, often with every political party in agreement so no choice. Where choice is given it is by election or referendum where at best only simple majority is required, shameful to push through permanent constitutional change which should require at least a 60% or 67% vote.

The case for leaving the Union is not very strong either, but it is getting stronger and the case for weakening the Union is extremely persuasive.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Grainger
31st May 2001, 20:36
Wind-up alert !

Anyone else noticed our originator YH conspicuous by his/her absence ?

Suspected as much at the start.

Come on out, YH !

Squawk 8888
31st May 2001, 21:31
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If one's essays didn't contain virtually all factual information, one wouldn't get such good grades.</font>

Good grades on PoliSci (or any liberal arts) essays have little to do with the facts presented and much to do with whether one's thesis reflects the political views of the prof. I'm quite sure that Natterjack's profs are rabidly pro-EU.

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

GeneralAviation
31st May 2001, 21:53
Trouble is Natter you are not 'usually right' - no one every is. You may 'believe in Europe', doesn't mean that axiomatically you know much about it, nor about whether Britain could withdraw.

You see I'm not one of these 'Watch TV to gain understanding', I'm one of these 'travel the world to gain experience' and until you know your adversary never make assumptions. As a budding law student you should know that.

A few months of study doesn't make you an expert (though perhaps it does in the colloquial sense). Maybe you will be a worthy opponent when you've grown up some.

As I said, what has this to do with political correctness?

On to more amusing matters
God was in his heaven and decided to ring old Nick to find out if everything was ok.

The devil replied that things where just dandy, taken aback God asked how come,

"well," say's Nick "I got an engineer down here fixed up some air conditioning and its great."

"What," say's God, "are you doing with an engineer?, you know they should all go to heaven, send him back at once."

"No" say's the Devil "I'm keeping him."

"I'll sue!" say's God.

"Oh yeah?" say's the devil "and where are you going to get a solicitor?"



------------------
I love to give homemade gifts ... umm, which one of the kids would you like?

Stiff Lil' Fingers
31st May 2001, 22:30
Firstly the inability to ditch the euro once joined is enshrined in law - I believe it is included within the Maastricht Treaty.

Moreover, there are specific clauses that state:

a)during the transition period between locking of exchange rates to the euro and phasing out of the national currency (i.e. where we are right now with 11 currencies)that the national currency unit e.g. deutschemarks are legally only a denomination of the euro i.e. they do not exist in their own right;

b) upon full conversion to the euro (scheduled for 2002 for the above) that each member state is specifically precluded from i) pulling out of the euro and ii) cannot under any circumstances revamp its former currency.

Ok, agreed its the political will that holds it together rather than the law itself but consider the issues that would arise should a member state due to economic pressures wish to pull out of the euro due to pressures to devalue. Lets consider Italy.

- What would happen to the value of euro cash assets/liabilities held in Italy by non-Italian residents/companies? Would they retain their euro value or would they be valued as having been converted to 'new' Lira ?

- What would happen to cash deposits / liabilities held by Italian residents / companies offshore? ditto

The pulling out of a constituent member state of the euro would cause utter turmoil in the financial markets possibly leading to European recession - so much so that the other constituent member states would be forced to support that member state economically such that it would not need to leave. This in turn could lead to nationalist uprisings and possibly even wars in the extreme.

Perversely though it was exactly to prevent this scenario occurring that was behind the original political desire for greater integration.There was an interesting documentary a couple of years ago about the origins of the euro. Nothing to do whatsoever about economic advancement per se and totally to do with the desire by Germany and France to ensure that their countries were so tied together economically and politically that war in Europe could never happen. Indeed, it was the Germans who were acutely aware of potential nationalist uprisings and who most wanted to see greater integration with other member states.

Interesting to see what happens next year!

Rollingthunder
31st May 2001, 22:54
This is really quite old, isn't it?

Economically the EU seems to make sense, a natural move countering NAFTA and the Asian grouping, global economics. More spheres to come, I'll bet.

Interesting parallels to mega-airlines, a continuing trend.

However losing the currency is not a factor currently, outside of the European model. why is this? And why the strong focus on it?

I like the pound but next steps will include the planetary buck and Acme Airlines (1, 2 or 3), eventually.

TM, Copyright, Walmart Air 2001.

little red train
31st May 2001, 23:25
All this 'in the book' and in theory the EU making sense is true on paper

reality check

It won’t work, it struggles at best at the moment, giving them more power, and things are only going to get worse.

How does the argument of having any democratic decision making removed, and being lumped in the same boat as every other EU country going to help the UK, as said before the UK has one of the leading economies in the world. Why the hell do we want to be considered on a par with any of the other countries?

It wont work in reality.

Case in point the JAA! Now after European wide harmonisation of aviation (which is falling flat on its face) the NAAs are having to create entire new national systems, NPPLs, restricted CPLs ect.

Not joining Europe won’t stop us ever speaking to anyone again; it will stop £2.60 out for every 50p in, and allow the UK to make its own decision.

I don’t have a degree in history, politics, and economics. Only common sense.

Paterbrat
1st Jun 2001, 20:34
Er Political Correctness was I believe the origional thread.
I believe it could be covered by me possibly saying that there is a load of absolute codswallop being driveled on about being patriotic and loyal to this country in abolishing it's historic institutions and hand over toatal control of our affairs to the unelected and unaccountable beaurocrats that are swilling with their snouts in the trough over in Brussels.
Possibly also the terrible thoughts I have about the inefectual hamhandedness of the present asylum policies, and finaly throw in the truley appalling opinion I might have of that red cheeked swaggering bully girl Clare Short and her ideas of what should be done with the taxes of the people of this country and the enrichment of the politicans of various thirdworld countries. But of course none of these things would be politicaly correct to ever venture in polite company and I would therefore never think or say anything like that at all

catswhisker
1st Jun 2001, 23:31
Nowt to do with this, Tartan G, and would quietly e-mail you if I could track down your address. But, as an ex-BBC World Service journo, I'd love to know what you think their "spin" is nowadays. I'm not about to defend them. Just interested. Oh, and as an ex-classical musician (yep, I been around) I'm intrigued by your comments on Classic FM too.

[email protected]

Tartan Gannet
2nd Jun 2001, 03:10
Okey, all the faeces discharged by the bowels of the World are heroes to the BBC World Service. Every terrorist is a noble freedom fighter, every unrepresentative minority is pandered to, all the dramas are chosen with a hidden politically correct agenda to promote such persons and organisations and to push a message, un male, unwhite, un law abiding, un Northern Hemisphere. I became totally sick of it and voted with my feet. I now listen to a different station, enjoy the music and although the news coverage is sparse I am left to take the facts and come to my own conclusion not fed a line by "our own correspondent". Lord Reith must be turning in his grave. Id like more news coverage but now rely on teletext and the internet to fill the gap.

I hope this answers the question.

tony draper
2nd Jun 2001, 03:16
Hmmm, Draper is not alone, there are others.

[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 02 June 2001).]

catswhisker
2nd Jun 2001, 03:35
aha. And teletext and the internet are raw, unfiltered relays of purest fact..?

Tartan Gannet
2nd Jun 2001, 10:57
As I type this I am reading BBC Teletext. I have chosen a controversial item about fuel tax protestors as an example. Now all it does is state the facts, no spin, no bias, no sarcastic, sneering intonations, rhetorical questions, irony, by a biased commentator. That is why I prefer that medium as I can get the facts and put whatever interpretation on them that I wish, not have it spoonfed to me according to the interviewer's or institution's line.

Now Im sure that like all the media the choice of which news items to publicise and which to ignore has an element of selectivity. There is nothing one can do about that. ALL the media do this as there is a finite amount of space be it electronic or paper. They have to chose what will interest the readers or viewers and is relevant to them. I have no problem with that. For example I am not the slightest bit interested in a news item about the Trade Minister of Burkina-Faso (if they have one) but would be interested in one about the UK Secretary for Trade or their Tory Shadow.

golden_hands
2nd Jun 2001, 11:39
TG, are you sure that there are only facts posted in teletext? It is still written down by a Human, therefore probably biased. Furthermore it's not for sure that ALL the facts are there. Maybe the author was unaware or (s)he left it deliberately out!

As far as I'm concerned the news on the TV or radiostations or even in opinionmagazines isn't correct a lot of times. They tell a lot of BS stories on aviation for instance, just as bad as a Hollywood movie. :rolleyes:

Tartan Gannet
2nd Jun 2001, 17:45
As I have said, what you dont know you cannot worry about, but its the slant put on the facts which annoy me. A good example was the reportage of the race riots in Oldham last week. The facts were plain to see on the TV, but the slant put on reporting same was so biased that Im surprised that they didnt suggest giving medals to the rioters. That's what I object to. Simply report what happened and let us make up our own minds.

tony draper
2nd Jun 2001, 18:02
Watch a interesting one a couple of weeks ago
on local news clip from a security camera video, a robbery taking place in a off licence three guys,the item gave height,appox weight,described clothing worn, accent etc,not one mention of the fact that they were obviously black, thats a no no now.

Unwell_Raptor
2nd Jun 2001, 19:40
TG quoth:

Simply report what happened and let us make up our own minds.

Yes... but.....

"The candidate drank from a half full glass under a sky which was clouding over, and retreated to his car which was half full of fuel"

Go on then, be objective about that lot.

Tartan Gannet
2nd Jun 2001, 20:56
So, U_R Id conclude he was one of those waste of space Liberal Democrats! :)

golden_hands
2nd Jun 2001, 21:22
Yes TG, I also object to the forgiving talk about criminals. They do things which cannot be forgiven despite the youth they so called must have had. It's cr*p!

The only point I wanted to make is that it's probably very difficult to make unbiased news, as I believe nobody is pure objective.

Velvet
2nd Jun 2001, 22:40
Absolutely golden hands, it is very easy to write with a biased slant, dependent upon what message you wish to project ie freedom fighters or terrorists. Often it is very subtle and unnoticeable, but can reflect the personal perception of the writer, the current mores of society or even a more sinister undercurrents.

Even a reporter trying to be unbiased will bring some knowledge to bear, and then it is usually edited. I would think very rarely does anything go out from news agencies without being vetted for legal implications, or just to fit a particular slot or space. Even more so if it has been translated from another language.

Except, of course, Pruners who are the perfect model of unbiased and objective writing :)

------------------
How do you explain to a caterpillar that it can become a butterfly, and will, regardless of its current belief system.

[This message has been edited by Velvet (edited 02 June 2001).]

Winston Smith
4th Jun 2001, 18:06
No doubt about it, the present day EU is becoming more and more something like a second Soviet Union by the day, and we won't be able to stop it anymore - for the simple fact that our political system has long since ceased to give the people's will any consideration. Even if Britain or anybody else could manage to escape from the fangs of Brussels, this would not keep our political caste from implementing further communist policies (Did you know that the term "politically correct" was first used by Lenin's "expert" on Education, Makarenko?). So don't worry too much about the EU as an institution. After all, we are "all in this together", and if we will not hang together, we shall hang separately.

As for your fears concerning Germany "dominating" any possible European Federation, I can positively state that they are totally unfounded. The same breed of people who are flooding Great Britain with "immigrants" and generally spitting in your faces in every conceivable way (from unilaterally applied "Hate Crime" laws to special rights for perverts) are at the helm in Germany (and any other White country, for that matter), too. This scum obviously couldn't care less about any so-called British or German "interests" (I still don't see why these should be contrary anyway). Needless to say, any future European brother-wars are even more inconceivable, at least as far as sentiment among Germans is concerned. In this respect, I do not know anyone in my generation (I'm in my twenties) who harbours any animosity against fellow European nations - and that includes the British. I said this because one cannot avoid the impression that the British people - for some inscrutable reasons - think that their island just happens to be accidentally anchored near the shores of some vast territory inhabitated by savage tribes totally unrelated to themselves. I still remember having seen on TV, many years ago, some British political or intellectual eminence, quite dignified in appearance (I forgot who it was), who explained that he always felt uneasy on the European mainland since there was nothing between himself and Vladivostok. Of course I assume that this reclusive world-view is much less prevalent among pilots.

P.S.: God save us from the likes of Natterjack who wave their diplomas in your face to "prove" their opinions - well, as Squawk 8888 concisely put it, in most cases these opinions aren't even theirs. Nowadays "good grades" are becoming an indicator of parrot-mindedness in an increasing number of subjects.

Winston Smith
7th Jun 2001, 19:36
Coming soon to a school (i.e. indoctrination centre) near you:


by Neill H. Payne 06.02.01

Houston--Another student fell victim in April to the escalating campaign for the ethnic cleansing of Dixie. Ryan Zane Oleichi, a 13-year-old student at Labay Middle School outside of Houston, Texas, required hospitalization for the treatment of injuries he received when he was viciously assaulted as he was leaving school. The two perpetrators, a Black and an Hispanic classmate objected to a book that Ryan was carrying home because it had a picture of the Confederate battle flag on the cover. Ryan got the book from the school library for a report that he was doing on Gen. Robert E. Lee.

This outrage is the direct and proximate result of a hostile learning environment created by the administration of the Labay Middle School. Particularly culpable is the Assistant Principal, Ms. Cheryl Morrison.

Back on 19 February, which was a Monday, Ryan's mother Melinda Hill was called to the school. Ms. Morrison met with Ryan's mom to tell her that Ryan was to start 3 days detention as punishment for his wearing of a Confederate flag patch on his shirt. The offending emblem measured all of one inch by one and one-half inches. Overruling the fact that the rulebook only calls for a one-day penalty for infractions of the school dress code, Ryan was to be made an example. You see, Ms. Morrison told Mrs. Hill, "We must make an example of Ryan. He is a racist."

Mrs. Hill was confused by this turn of events. Ryan had worn this shirt several times before without incident. He is proud to wear the Confederate flag because of his love for his Southern Confederate heritage. He is a good student with good grades. He is not a troublemaker nor is he a racist. In fact, he is half Lebanese. Ms. Morrison would only say that an "extreme example" must be made. Ryan would be given three days detention and then forced to apologize publicly to all the Black students for being a "racist."

Thus the Assistant Principal's auto-da-fe set in motion the wheels of persecution that lead to Ryan's beating. Students began verbally abusing Ryan and harassing him. On 20 April events began to escalate. A student, Christina Nelson, walked up and slapped Ryan's face. She then threatened to sic her "posse" on him. "Posse" is generally understood to be a slang term among Blacks that means "a gang."

Then on 26 April, which is Confederate Memorial Day in Texas, Ryan was working on his book report on Confederate General Robert E. Lee in his first period class. He was looking at the book that he had checked out from the school library. A classmate of his, a Black student named Andrew Foster asked, "What's that?" Ryan replied, "It's a book." Andrew then asked, "Why do you have that flag on it?" Ryan responded, "It's the only one in the school library."

At this point an Hispanic student, Leonardo Suarez chimed in, "You racist . . . you racist! I'm gonna kick your a__! I don't know when, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, but I'm gonna kick your a__!"

When leaving the classroom, the Black student, Foster, tripped Ryan then slammed him against the lockers and issued his own threat to kick Ryan's a__. They made good on their threats as soon as school was over. In a sickening display of how diversity is our strength, this multi-ethnic duo caught Ryan outside the school fence. Foster got to Ryan first and began punching him in the face and stomach until Ryan hit the ground. Foster then hollered for Suarez to join him. Foster shouted, "Hey Leonardo, Ryan doesn't like Mexicans, he wants you to go back to Mexico." Suarez ran up and with his steel toed boots and started kicking Ryan in the head as Ryan lay on the ground. Suarez continued "kicking his a__" as he had threatened to do until Ryan lay unconscious at their feet.

At no time did Ryan fight back even though he holds a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. Even at the tender age of thirteen, Ryan understands the political landscape of the Political Correctness Empire. He knew that if he were to do anything against this pair he would be painted as the aggressor. Don't forget, he now bore the scarlet "R". He was a racist according to the judgment of an assistant principal and by virtue of his own coerced confession and apology. It was open season. He was to be made an example.

Unfortunately, even his refusal to fight back did not help his cause. The school, when it learned of the "incident", did nothing. The excuse that they used for their do-nothing policy was that the "incident" had occurred out side of the school grounds. In spite of witnesses they declared it was "mutual combat," because Ryan had the audacity to put his hands up to protect his face. The District Attorney was contacted and he has refused to file charges. So far nothing has been done and apparently no official or agency will do anything to bring some justice to this situation.

Ryan subsequently spent three days in the hospital, was treated and released to convalesce at home. When Ryan returned to school he received more verbal abuse and death threats. A particularly odious harpy, a student by the name of Carrie Neumann, made a small career out of shouting loud insults at Ryan every day. She issued veiled threats saying that she was "connected." She sent a package to Ryan's home that his mother is afraid to pick up. This entire outrageous experience is causing a great deal of strain on this single mom and her son. Until they contacted the SLRC, no one that they
called would dare lift a finger to help them.

No amount of pleading or protest by Ryan's mother could get the school or district officials to intervene on Ryan's behalf. Assistant Principal Morrison made good on her promise to make an "extreme example" out of Ryan.

What must it be like to be thirteen and to be thrown to these wolves? Ryan learned that Suarez was saying that he was, "not satisfied and won't be until Ryan is dead." One week after he returned to school his mother withdrew him and she will school him at home.

With permission from 'The Sierra Times'
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/jun/02/arnp060201.htm

Tartan Gannet
8th Jun 2001, 01:24
Winston, all I can say is that "those who sew the wind will reap the whirlwind".

ickle black box
8th Jun 2001, 02:02
I though that I had read a lot of really scary PC [email protected] on the internet, but that story takes the biscuit. I'ts just absolutly [email protected] unbelieveable. In fact, it's the most worrying report of what we are heading towards I've ever read!

Steepclimb
8th Jun 2001, 02:29
Interesting story, written with a clear intent and slant. The full facts no doubt, quite unlike the BBC, eh? Tartan Gannet.

White boy attacked by black and a Hispanic and accused of racism for his evident interest in his 'Southern Confederate Heritage'. Imagine such a thing happening in Texas of all places.

Yes indeed, PC works both ways, media slant works both ways too.

It wouldn't take much to re-write that story and make Ryan look the bad guy. The give away in the story is the very first line. 'the escalating campaign for the ethnic cleansing of DIXIE'. A white boy (with a Lebanese background)attacked by some ethnics, what a shock!

Media slant is not a one way street. Neither is Political correctness.

Winston Smith? Who he? A convenient pseudonym no doubt.


[This message has been edited by Steepclimb (edited 07 June 2001).]

Tartan Gannet
8th Jun 2001, 04:51
I wouldnt read too much into the term "Dixie" a shorthand for the South in the USA just as "OOP North" is sometimes used in the UK to designate the former industrial working class area of England.

This is NOT the first story of its type I have read and does to my mind have a ring of truth to it. A country cannot deny its history, good or bad. I for example studied Oliver Cromwell for the British History section of my A Level History. Now my bringing a book into class with his portrait on it may offend some Irish Catholics but that to me is just too bad. I might not like a book about the IRA with a front cover depicting De Valera, but I would accept that it was relevant to the subject and the history of Ireland and its relationship with the rest of Britain. Likewise I would accept a student writing a thesis entitled "Robert Mugabe Saviour of Black Africa" while I reject the idea and would personally consider this man a racist, despot and murdering bast**d.

All the pious political correctness cannot re-write history nor should it ever do so. Remember too that the original Winston Smith was employed in Orwell's 1984 to do precisely that and re-write newspaper articles to suit the politcally correct slant of Big Brother and his ruling elite. For every "attrocity" on one side there is usually a counter outrage on the other, eg "Black Hole of Calcutta" Vs "Amritsar Massacre". As one who preached peace and love thine enemy said "Let he amongst you that is without sin cast the first stone".

Rollingthunder
8th Jun 2001, 05:40
I haven't bought a newspaper in ages. Get the same stuff off the net. No matter what the medium, it needs to be filtered through a reasoning brain.

I like ClassicFM... also CBC Radio2 and Elgar most of all.

The things you do not know are a concern, and perhaps worth worrying about. You shouldn't worry about the things you cannot do anything about. Even that requires some research into whether or not you can do something about it, and whether or not it fits on your to do list.

About the attack on the school boy...if accurate and true it's more or less an isolated incident and a cruel example of typical adolescent ignorances. Regretably some never progress beyond this kind of adolescent behavior.Although attention grabbing, it is thankfully not typical of life in North America or the rest of the planet, yet.

Mr. Perplexed
8th Jun 2001, 10:14
More examples of political correctness? Here's a doozey. Here in the States, "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day" are quickly becoming politically incorrect. It seems there's a gay couple comprised of two males, raising a child. I guess the child came from a test tube. Anyway, in sending the child to a private school, they were offended over the concept of "Mother's Day" and asked the school not to observe it. The school complied. Money (read: potential tuition) talks. Of course, this also means that "Father's Day" is, likewise, now politically incorrect as it will offend lesbian couples raising children that were brought into the world by an anonymous donor and a turkey baster. Welcome to the new millennium. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif :mad: :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by Mr. Perplexed (edited 08 June 2001).]

Squawk 8888
8th Jun 2001, 17:58
Rollingthunder, it's obvious you've never been anywhere near a school in the Jane/Finch area in Toronto. White kids are considered "fair game", especially if their parents are working instead of collecting welfare. Also targeted are the black kids who show any kind of ambition or work ethic- the ghetto mentality there regards them as "sellouts".

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Squawk 8888
8th Jun 2001, 18:05
Well said Tartan, but I might add that rewriting history is nothing new- people in the South have endured it for a long, long time. The Big Lie for them is the claim that the civil war was about slavery, but the truth is that the slaves were freed in the South early on while slavery continued in the north until after the war ended (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Kentucky, a slave state that did not secede, while the Confederate constitution prohibited slavery).

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

Rollingthunder
8th Jun 2001, 18:29
Squawk8888

No, never been near any of those schools. In fact,I try to avoid YYZ like the plague.

However, I maintain that these kind of things are still isolated aberations and not a true measure of the current state of tolerance or society in the wider sense.

Steepclimb
9th Jun 2001, 01:33
You know what strikes me as odd is that people are still fighting the civil war. Hey people it's over you lost or won depending on your point of view. Typical of civil wars really, they never end.
Yes Squawk we all know it wasn't just about slavery. But much of this latest skimishing is about race, isn't it? I like your spin on it too. No slaves in the south? that's a good one!!

TG, your equivocal response is typical. Again you're quite aware that Dixie is not simply an affectionate term for the south in certain contexts. You're wrong about Cromwell too. It wouldn't raise an eyebrow in Ireland. Near where I live is a road called Cromwellsfort Road, surely a candidate for a name change, you'd have thought? Not so. It commemorates the time he camped there before he set off to slash and burn the papists. Now good ole General Lee can hardly be included in the same category, the only thing he did was to lose the war to the Yankees.

Squawk 8888
9th Jun 2001, 07:21
Your spin not mine steepclimb. I never claimed there were no slaves in the South, just that the last slaves to be freed were those in the North, something conveniently omitted by those who would have us believe that Southerners are all mouth-breathing troglodytes who would still be slaveowners today if Lincoln hadn't stepped in. There's plenty of history rewritten all the time, Winston Smith's job is still being done. Even I've been hoodwinked- at school I was taught that there were no slaves in Canada, later they changed the story to being that Canadians were the first to free the slaves. Found out only a couple of years ago that the first legally owned slaves in North America were Indians captured by the settlers of Québec and that the first jurisdiction in North America to abolish slavery was Massachusetts, not Canada. The best-kept secret of all, though, was the fact that it wasn't just slaves that the Americans imported from Africa, it was the practice of slavery as well. It had been going on there for at least 2,000 years and most of the slaves taken out by the Europeans weren't captured from their homelands, they were sold by their own tribal leaders. The institution of slavery is still alive and well in Africa today (especially in Sudan), yet the PC types would have you believe that the phenomenon was all some sort of white European plot to oppress blacks.

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

[This message has been edited by Squawk 8888 (edited 09 June 2001).]

askcv
12th Jun 2001, 11:32
Squawk8888...Very interested in the slavery thing....are you referring to Lincoln's proclamation freeing the slaves in the south (but not the slave states in the north) as the basis of your statement that they were freed in the south before they were freed in the north? If you are, then the south did not accept that proclamation and the slaves were not in fact freed at that time.
You are right though, in any case. I cannot see the whites of the then USA going to war over slaves and I cannot see them doing so now, if it still existed.

Capt Vegemite
12th Jun 2001, 11:56
If you read Abes proclaimation,he cared not whether slaves should be freed,but was concerned only with the preservation of the Union.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.</font>