In the induction for training for my new position, I was asked: “Which groups do you consider are discriminated against?”
I replied: “The most discriminated against at this time are the aging white British male and to a lesser extent, the aging white British female.”
There was a sharp intake of breath from her and she said “That is not as the law states and we must comply with the law. What you’re saying is a matter for policy change and we don’t directly deal with that.”
“When I come to work, I leave politics at the door though I’m heavily involved in them in the outside world.”
She accepted that and added: “I understand what you’re saying but we really must comply with the law.”
When I read through the training manual, sure enough, there were the groups we all know listed and sure enough, the white British male was excluded. Now we have an interesting situation. I’m not allowed to comment on the law at work and must rely on someone above in the policy department to push for changes in the law.
This they clearly will not do.
Therefore, to have a job is to comply with an unjust set of laws [or statutes, to be precise]. Not to have a job is also to comply because one is taking the taxpayer’s shilling. What does the taxpayer think? The taxpayers are divided.
There must be some mechanism whereby, if a law is unjust, it can be challenged, debated and overthrown. If that provision is not there, then it must be put in place by the taxpayers themselves. The principle of open debate is a sacred one.
As a result of my views on this and on so many views dotted throughout my own blog and to a lesser extent, at OoL, an Anonymous commenter wrote:
@James Higham Can’t tell if sexist or just very ignorant.
So, one of the Twitterati. The reason I’m personally so aggressive against feminazism, PCism, the hijacking of words [see AK Haart’s post below], the gay mafia forcing itself on children:
… and so on is that it is a set of false ideological constructs forced into statutes which are then forced upon the non-compliant who realize these statutes are unjust and unfair. And they are amazingly damaging to society as a whole in their pig-ignorance [softer word used here].
Therefore so many of us are belligerent and society is divided. We didn’t divide society, this process did.
Therefore I am also committed, personally, to taking this to the edge, whilst remaining just inside the law. Hence comments the leftist will call sexist, racist, anything he doesn’t like -ist are not that at all. To point out an injustice is no -ism, it’s simply pointing out an injustice.
There are too many people quite happy to slur whilst maintaining that they are the soft, kindly ones and such people are the worst of the lot. When asked questions directly, they substitute more slurs and emotion for argument. They don’t see themselves being the subject of action at all, though they have slandered and libelled. Such people get up my nose and thus I shall continue to show their hypocrisy and prejudice, name them and shame them.
One such leftist wrote: “You’re not going to get far with an attitude like that.” What she misunderstands is that many of us are fed up to the back teeth with the whole shoddy structure that’s been imposed on us and wish to see it dismantled. I think we’ll get a long way by showing we won’t be walked over.
So no – I am not misogynist or racist in the least, just because I detest feminazis, parachutees and unrestricted immigration at a time of austerity, just because I do not appreciate importees getting up and vilifying this nation and because I am calling for their BS to be blocked and the infrastructure they’ve imposed to be dismantled.
Have a pleasant Sunday everyone, whether white, black, Christian, Muslim, atheist, disabled, gay, normal, tall, short, thin, obese or whatever.