Changing the law regarding PCism

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.

12 comments for “Changing the law regarding PCism

  1. November 27, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Actually the law says that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, sexuality, race, religion, age or disability – so it is discrimination to refuse someone on the basis of being white and a bit older. I do recall that Harridan Harman was trying to push through a bill to enable discrimination against white males, but IIRC the election came along and it didn’t happen.

    Employers’ policies will say something similar: “We are an equal opportunities employer and do not discriminable on the basis of gender, sexuality, race religion or age”. They bloody well do, though. And just you try and get something done about it…

    Too low a hand in victimhood poker.

    And it is not appropriate to be teaching infants about sexuality of any kind. When I was six, I had no idea what homosexuality was and quite right, too. There is a time and six years old isn’t it.

    • David
      November 27, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Of course the easy way around this is to play them at their own game. In my last job application I ticked ‘mixed white/asian’ as my ethnicity, got an interview and got the job. As applications now go through an organisation’s admin office you get extra points on yours if you tick certain boxes and you’re pretty much guaranteed an interview. This page of an application is detached so the interview panel apparently knows nothing about disability/enthnicity etc and their own rules bar asking anyone about their enthinic origins or health in an interview or after a job offer. The hurdle to get over these days is getting an interview in the first place so just lie about your ethnic origins (and sexual orientation too if necessary). Aren’t we all ‘out of Africa’ anyway?

      Infiltrate and take over my friends. Hoist them by their own petard and smash this vile cult.

  2. Jeremy Poynton
    November 27, 2011 at 11:56 am

    I think you will find that Harman did get her bag of prejudice into law, and that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against the white male. I should have bookmarked it, but two or three years back a blogger wrote on an advert that did such.

    Regardless, what you write is spot on. Equality of treatment is under the law is one thing, demanding special treatment under the law quite another matter, which needs fighting tooth and nail.

    • November 27, 2011 at 1:17 pm

      Longrider and Jeremy, and then Harman has the nerve to claim we must all be anti-discriminatory.

  3. November 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    “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.”..”

    You don’t really want this new job, then…? 😉

  4. Edward Spalton
    November 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Harman was also successful in building perpetual activism into the law so that public employers have to seek out and correct potential discrimination all the time and report annually. This will be a happy hunting ground for PC activists.

    I believe that the Conservatives could have stopped this Bill becoming law in the “wash-up” before the general election but they chose not to do so. This was part of becoming the “nice” party, I suppose.

    Having doorstepped hundreds of people at the 2005 election, I was horrified at the number who started to tell me what they thought and checked themselves, usually asking “Am I allowed to say that?” . We have become a tame people, terrified by the Thought Police.

    • November 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      Edward, it is dismaying to see this happening every which way we turn.

    • Lord T
      November 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm

      So they don’t. They just act on it.

      It is my believe that in the early 90s racism was almost gone except for a few die hard KKK types. Now everyone has jokes to say and racism is at a new high.

      There is always a backlash.

  5. Furor Teutonicus
    November 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    And you amateuers then say we should have stood up and complained, or DONE something, when the Gestapo took away our neighbours???

  6. Ian
    November 27, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Under EU employment law, the employer has to prove he’s in the right at a tribunal – but only if the litigant is female or from an ethnic or sexual minority. Otherwise the onus is on the employee.

    • November 27, 2011 at 8:20 pm

      Do you have an Act and section for that, Ian?

Comments are closed.