Is It Really Freedom of Speech They Want or Freedom to Discriminate?
Updated: Jun 14, 2019
Seeing as reality is whatever a White Man (or at least a white person) says it is, let's define freedom of speech (as defined in Dr Boulé Whytelaws III's dictionary of popularly used coded terms):
1a. The right to say whatever you want, provided it is not too insulting, threatening or offensive to white people.
1b. White people's right to be flagrantly racist and dehumanising towards non-white people without a hint of repercussions.
I watched a documentary, with Trevor Philips OBE, also known as The Undercover Brother (1), released in 2017, though still relevant if not more so, entitled, 'Has Political Correctness Gone Mad.' It's a powerful critique of the PC police and their so called victims at a time when politics was and still being dismantled.
It enlightened me as well as leaving me with a feeling that something had been left out as another possible solution to the argument around political correctness that is battled out between the right and the left.
He does however sucessfully some up this debate succinctly. He says liberals say that the Right's attitude towards political correctness is a cloak for bigotry, while those on the Right themselves believe they are being demonized by the Left.
If you call being demonized for preserving White-Christian (it seems the two are mutually exclusive here) Europe from immigration invasion and consequent population replacement and transformation into a Islamic Caliphate. If you call being a victim living in fear of losing your largely mythic nationalistic identity and so you cry one message to your lynch mob: you have been betrayed, the country has been humiliated and we (leading Brexiteers) will make Britain great again. Then it seems being demonized has been given a whole new meaning and a strange one at !
Highlights of the docuementary include a group discussion amongst students activists at Nottingham Trent University about what is and is not politically correct behaviour. Here are some of the examples that they considered unsafe:
• Is it safe to wear Mexican sombrero ❌ • Cross dressing for fun ❌ • Wearing a Pocahontas costume ❌
What struck about this student debate and the national debate is who is absent or rather who is represented in these political discussions. In the all-seemingly-white student discussion none of them were apparently Mexican nor did any of them share Pocahontas' ethnic origin (Native American).
If any of the students on the show are bi-racial or of the above ethnicites I do apologise. If not though (as I suspect), this begs the question: how can people decided on whether an issue is offensive to other people who do not look like them without discussing it with people who do not look like them. They have no skin in the game. Would we find it acceptable if the writings and teachings on the situation of white people and race elations were done almost exclusively by BAMEs? How does this influence our understanding?
An obvious example is how can I say if something is anti-white if I am black or homophobic or Islampphobic if I'm not homosexual or a Muslim respectively? Moreover, I am black and having an anti-white sentiment to me is not the same a racism, yet many white people may disagree.
"If you call being demonized for preserving White-Christian (it seems the two are mutually exclusive here) Europe from immigration invasion and consequent population replacement and transformation into a Islamic Caliphate. If you call being a victim living in fear of losing your largely mythic nationalistic identity and so you cry one message to your lynch mob: you have been betrayed, the country has been humiliated and we (leading Brexiteers) will make Britain great again. Then it seems being demonized has been given a whole new meaning..."
For instance, I was at a recent show headlined by Nish Kumar the super British-Indian comedian (his current comedy tour). There was an Asian family on the front row who said to Nish it was okay to be called 'P@k!'. Nish DID NOT agree that it was okay, however they did. So who's right?
To me this is the first step towards having a healthier more robust debate and that is including people in discussions about a discriminatory issue that are the ones who are being subject to said discrimination in those discussion. If we want to broaden our understanding through engaging with more perspectives, we need to diversify the sources we engage with in our discussions.
Trevor Phillips concludes the documentary saying that to recognise real progress we need to perhaps:
• Stop confusing symbols with substance. • Learn to live with offence.
I think the issue lies within identity politics. Many on the Right are lead to believe that freedom of speech means freedom to discriminate. It does not as there are laws to protect people from discriminatory behaviour for a reason. However, Leftist must also realise that the right not to be offended does not mean that people will stop being offensive.
As Nigel Farage in his interview perceptively puts it, 'the more that Trump was vilified by the NY Times and the Democratic establishment, the ruder they were about Trump [and terryfyingly] the more the Trumpites thought HE IS OUR GUY.'
1 The Undercover Brother is a black professional type, part of The Whytelaw Black Professional Types. Taken from his masterfully humour and smart book, "Think Like a White Man," as told by Nels Abbey. "He [The Undercover Brother] is a natural outsider desperate to become an insider. He is a black person swimming firmly against the tide in an implicitly segregated Nie Blankes ocean" (p175).