eurealist.co.uk

Writing in the Guardian Roy Hattersley takes those who ague against political correctness to task, he mentions the case where a 10 year old boy was taken to court for calling a classmate a “Paki” which Judge Jonathan Feinstein said was “political correctness gone mad”. Also the outburst of fictional TV detective Andy Dalziel against political correctness, which was notable because Dalziel was the first character to be allowed to get away with such policially un-correct language that I know of and was quite a shock to hear see TV actually showing what people say in true life instead of a politically correct version of it.

The whole point is as Hattersley says about thought control, control of the language leads to control of peoples thinking, which I think is Marxist credo.

“We think in words. If we use words that suggest there is something reprehensible about gays, women or ethnic minorities, that is how we come to think about them. What is more, our bad example can cause prejudice in others. Political correctness has helped change the world. It is at least in part because decent people denounce talk of poofters and queers that something approaching legal equality has been afforded to gay men. And it is because such language is still defended in the name of liberty and plain English that there are still some dark corners of society in which they are regarded as inferior.”

Very vivid pictures Lord Hattersley, but what the political correct brigade are actually about is social engineering, but calling gay men, gay men and not pooofters will not change the fact that to many homosexuality is an aberration, it is against their religious belifes and they condemn the practice. There is also a world of difference between legally recognising a situation and correcting an inequality and forcing everyone to think and belive the same thing.

PC and its adherents would have us belive that only its interpretation of social suitability will be tolerated, which is a non- politically correct notion in itself, as such it is as equally denigrating as a concept as racism or religious belifes it is in fact a new compleate religion.

The Telegraph hits the jackpot with EUsceptic comment this Easter Monday, with this article
below Daniel Hannan`s comment that you might as well vote for Duck a for all the diference it makes and David Rennie report on Blairs dishonesty over the EU Budget

Impoverished by the EU
(Filed: 17/04/2006)

A billion here, a billion there: pretty soon it starts to add up to real money. As David Rennie reports today, the final bill to British taxpayers for Tony Blair’s cave-in on the EU budget is about £20 billion more than was announced at the time. This is a truly stupefying sum. The idea has somehow got round that our contributions to the EU budget are trivial when set against the advantages of increased market access. But it is worth setting the figures in context.

The additional amount conceded by Mr Blair last December, £7 billion, is equivalent to the total police budget for England and Wales. The United Kingdom’s annual gross contribution to Brussels, £12 billion, is equivalent to the combined revenue raised by inheritance tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty. We are, in short, paying in an awesome amount of money.

And what are we getting in return? Our Parliament is hobbled, our countryside ruined, our fishing grounds plundered, our businesses asphyxiated with regulation. Even in his own terms, as a pro-European, what did Mr Blair get in return for handing away our taxes? Did the French agree to reform the Common Agricultural Policy? Did the net recipient countries express their gratitude to Britain? Of course not.

We made some disobliging remarks about the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills at the time, but don’t take our word for it. Listen to how he was received in Europe. Le Parisien declared that “Chirac won the match against Tony Blair on the British rebate”. Welt am Sonntag commented: “Tony Blair began the EU presidency as a tiger and ended it as a doormat”.

Of course, for Mr Blair, the figures are irrelevant. For him, Europe has always been more about demonstrating his internationalist credentials than about securing specific objectives for Britain. The idea of a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership strikes him as absurd, which is why he refuses to commission one.

Yet it is worth reminding ourselves, once again, of quite how much we are paying. At the last election, Mr Blair excoriated the Conservatives because of their modest plans to trim £4 billion a year from the tax bill. At the same time, he breezily expects us to pay three times this amount to Brussels every year. He cannot have it both ways. The next time he sneeringly asks the Tories how they plan to finance their tax cuts, they should reply, politely, “from the EU budget”.