Who are the racists? The accuser or the accused?

 

There is a supposed racism scandal.  A member of the staff of the royal family asked a woman,  black skin and exotic dress, where she came from.  Since the answer was that she was British born, and the one making conversation was still making conversation,  or maybe was curious, she asked where her family was from.  Fair enough, she was quite obviously not of Anglo stock.   

Horror. Scandal, "Racist," was the cry.

But who are the racists?  

The one who asked, or those who think that asking is somehow insulting.  Black skin is not something to be ashamed of,  and an interesting background is something to take pride in, if anything.  

Below is the picture of the woman who was asked an innocent question, and chose to make an enormous fuss about it.

Ngozi Fulani.

Another instance:  The infamous Oprah interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.  Apparently, someone said something about the baby they were expecting, how dark it would be.   But there is nothing wrong with having dark skin.  The one making the comment  (if it ever happened)  obviously didn't think there was anything wrong with darker skin,  so the racists must be the ones who do - the ones carrying on about the supposed racism in the question.  

Are black women like Oprah Winfrey or slightly darker-skinned people like Meghan Markle so ashamed of their complexion?   Because it is just a difference, not a defect.  If these twits would realise that, maybe they would not see racism everywhere.  

Meghan and one of her babies

A co-worker (Aboriginal) was expecting a baby with her husband, also Aboriginal.  I was imagining a gorgeous brown-skinned baby in contrast to my own blonde babies, and said something like that.  How was she insulted?  There is not a thing wrong with having a gorgeous brown-skinned baby.   It was not a racist comment.

People have to rethink what they call racist.  I have heard that even Maths has been labelled 'racist,'  goodness knows why.

But it seems to me that the ones who see 'racism' everywhere are frequently the one who see a darker skin as inferior. They are the racists, not those making innocent conversation. 

---------------------------------------------

Do you see sexism 'every day?' Or racism maybe?

Really?   Think about it.  Could it be you? 

The facebook post that prompted this article was from someone who’d rediscovered some old Brownie memorabilia, including the Brownie vow -  I don’t know which exact promise she referred to, but here is an example from the 1970s.  "I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to God, to serve the Queen and help other people and keep the Brownie Guide Law."  

 Probably the poster referred to a slightly different promise as she said they were supposed to put others ahead of themselves.  At any rate, she interpreted it as deliberately designed to influence girls to become passive and obedient.  It was sexist, she felt. Terribly, terribly sexist. I disputed a little – it was for children, and children were encouraged to be obedient to adults in those days, though less so these days. 

I said that probably the boys had similar vows as members of  Cubs and Scouts.  They do - The Scout Promise -

On my honour I promise that I will do my best—
To do my duty to God and the King (or to God and my Country)
To help other people at all times and
To obey the Scout Law.

There was another similar vow I remember reciting at school, morning assembly. It included the words ‘to cheerfully obey our parents, teachers and the law.’ I didn’t actually like it much – I was prepared to be obedient – generally, but I reckoned ‘cheerfully’ was a bit much to ask, so always omitted that word.

Her reply was adamant. The vow was sexist. It was aimed at making compliant, obedient, passive women. And further that she saw sexism ‘every day.’ 

Now that is an odd thing to me. There is the occasional sexism visible, for instance, when a man talks over a woman simply because he can, or a woman’s opinion is treated as less worthy than a man’s,  but who knows when it is sexist or when it is simply that a particular man is particularly rude?  Maybe he talks over other men as well.

We hardly ever see frank sexism these days. I remember many years ago,  I had a temporary job as ‘the girl’  in a small English hotel over Christmas – cleaner/assistant cook/washer-up, etc. The male cook said that women were inferior because once a month they became very bad-tempered. Now that was funny, I thought, since that cook was the worst tempered man I’d ever known. I didn’t say anything, I was only ‘the girl.’ Or maybe I did. I don’t remember so long ago. 

These kids, all colours.
They could represent my fictional Penwinnard kids.

Racism – the belief that some races are inferior to others only because of that race. That is so rare these days that I have never, ever seen it. And yet, people constantly bleat that we are such a ‘racist’ nation, that they see racism everywhere. Another long ago memory. I was in London, by myself, wandering around most days, just a sightseer. I was constantly being harassed by men wanting to strike up a conversation, (and presumably more.)  In response and in self defence, I became ruthless. A man would say ‘Hello,’ and I would respond with ‘Goodbye.’ It worked well. But one day, the man said, wounded, ‘Just because I’m black.’ 

I looked back at him. So he was. I hadn’t noticed and was about to say so when I remembered that I really didn’t want to have to deal with him, and went on. If he remembers, he probably still thinks it was just because I was being racist.

If you look hard enough for something, you will find it. If you interpret any minor rudeness or lack of respect as an ‘ism’ you will find it more and more. Even ten years ago, I scarcely noticed a person’s race when I had dealings with them. These days, there is so much talk about racism that I have started to notice. It used to be non-racist not to notice a person’s race. Now, oddly, that is no longer so. What did Martin Luther King say? ‘I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ 

It appears that, for some, that is no longer enough.  We have to work out a person's race (not always easy)  and be 'sensitive' in order to avoid 'micro-aggressions.'

What utter nonsense!  How about we simply treat people as people and stop looking for insults. Those who look hard enough will always find it.

It reminds me of something I wrote in one of my books. The manager of the Boys’ Home was accused of raping one of his boys. (The boy made it up.)  It refers to the woman who was to investigate the case.

‘She regarded her note-pad, greyish, recycled paper. Catherine Milne seldom had a thought that had not been first passed through a filter of political correctness, and 'green' was politically correct. In her world, men were suspect, white men especially so. Children and women were victims, and also those 'of ethnic origin' who had to be given every consideration, always remembering the shameful way they'd been treated in the past and probably still were.’

Milne was quite sure that the man in question was a rapist of boys, simply because he was accused. She wore blinkers, and so do many, many of us these days.  

In other words, stop looking so hard for an ‘ism’  and probably you will not find it. And if people are nasty to you, remember that it could always be simply that they don’t like you, and not because you are female or black or Muslim or gay or fat or anything else that has become an ‘ism.’

Look for my books in any online bookshop such as Amazon and Smashwords.

http://www.amazon.com/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1340847276&sr=1-1

Remember the 2011 London riots?

I am currently writing the fifth Penwinnard story, probably to be called 'Season of Storms.'

Today, I did some research  into the 2011 London riots - they have a (probably small)  part to play in the novel I am writing. Remember the event?   Londoners must have been horrified. I am far away from London. I was utterly shocked.  Civilised England, and this happens! 

While most articles about it emphasised that the rioters were of all races, a few had the audacity to point out that the rioters were overwhelmingly of ethnic descent, some blatantly said 'black.'

One article that  I read with interest was this one -

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/

Daily Archives: August 12, 2011

Not as white as they are painted

August 12, 2011 – 8:46 am

Robert  Henderson

His article highlighted the way that reports twisted themselves inside out trying to pretend that the riots had nothing to do with race. Political correctness does not like it when the facts are unpalatable.
The vast majority of those involved were recent immigrants, some, the children of immigrants. It is said that the police were so frightened of being called racist that they were reluctant to interfere when (mostly) blacks started looting shops and burning the cars of strangers.

But as Robert Henderson points out - no problem can be solved by refusing to properly and truthfully describe it.  In particular, race relations are not improved by fostering a sense of grievance in those who consider themselves the underdogs. There is no need for whites to crawl to those we are trying to help, and there is no point in emphasising and exaggerating past crimes, often 'crimes' that were committed with the best of intentions.

The following words are his.

'What should be done? I suggest this. All attempts by government to appease ethnic minority groups should stop. No more money for community leaders, ethnic based charities or public projects which promote the interests only of minority ethnic groups.  All the laws such as the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000  which give de facto privileges to ethnic minorities and prevent honest objections to immigration and its consequences should be repealed.  The police should be banned from playing the role of political commissars and get back to honest coppering; catching villains  and maintaining order. Institutionalised political correctness should be stripped from public service  and any organisation which receives public money.  Most importantly, politicians and the mainstream media should  stop incontinently  promoting the liberal fantasy of multicultural heaven and recognise that it is not heaven but at best purgatory.'

I would add that reporting should be accurate. It is not up to journalists to filter the facts to the current mania for being politically correct.

Note that I do not agree with everything that Henderson said. Some were, if not flatly wrong, at the very least with little evidence to back the claims.  And yet he has some very good points.

 Obviously, the suggestions of Henderson (above) were ignored. Four years later, and we are still trying to solve problems without ever defining the problems - and being 'racist' if we do.

So now we have the massive problem of widespread Islamic terrorism - Muslims who take their religion to extremes. It is almost obligatory to hastily add that this is 'only a tiny majority.' But for a 'tiny majority,' they seem to be remarkably effective, and worse, more flock to them every day. If only those Muslins were a little more selective about which tenets of their faith to follow.  (Oh, yes, I said Muslim. It is not a mere coincidence that 100% of Islamic terrorists are Muslim.) 

 

The Koran says:

'He that fights for God's cause fights for himself. God needs no man's help.'

but also, 3:156 - 'If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass.'

and: 4:93   'he that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death shall be recompensed by God. Surely God is forgiving and merciful.' 

and even:  2:216, p32

'FIGHTING is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.' 

 The Koran frequently contradicts itself, but there do seem to be more clauses in favour of violent jihad than there are against it.

But what if you would like to convert, and then you would no longer be an infidel.  Unfortunately, it appears that for some of us, it is not possible.

p191,  16:37 - Strive as you may to guide them, God will not guide those whom He confounds. There shall be none to help them.

32:13  Had it been Our will, We could have given every soul its guidance. But My word will be fulfilled: 'I will surely fill Hell with jinn and with humans all.'

2:1  As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears;  their sight is dimmed  and grievous punishment awaits them.

and: 2:10  There is a sickness in their hearts which God has aggravated:  they shall be sternly punished for the lies they ever told.

So this 'god' has aggravated sickness and confounds hearts, so for some of us, there can be no turning to Allah. We are doomed to remain unbelievers who will ultimately face tremendous punishment.

Just a tad unfair, you might say?

4:56  Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Surely God is mighty and wise.

'God is mighty and wise.' It's a tremendous irony in that context, don't you think? 
In short, I am with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in thinking there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam. 

(Ayaan Hirsi Ali is author of the book 'Infidel' among others.)

And yet, there are similar things in the Christian bible, probably similar in the holy books of the Jewish faith (some, of course, they hold in common.)  The difference is that a miniscule number of Christian and Jews decide to wage war on civilisation. I would say none, but I suppose there could be a madman here or there. 

Quotes taken from 'The Koran' translated with notes by N. J. Dawood, Penguin Books, 2006 edition.

My message is this: 

* Shun political correctness when it gets in the way of facing facts.

* Facts should never be deemed unsayable.

and, in fact:

* Political correctness run mad has set the scene for religious extremists to run mad.

___________________________

 

 

 

One of the main characters in my fifth Penwinnard Story is Mutty.  His full name is Mutana Wirta, and he is described as 'black as coal with an impish grin.'

 

 

Expected publication date, November, 2015.


The cover shown is not final, though maybe something like it will be.

And thank you to Elijah for allowing me to use his image.   

 

 

 

 

 

  

Meantime, there are four other Penwinnard Stories to enjoy. They are set in a Boys' Home close to the imaginary village of Ryalston in Cornwall. 

 

 

 

 

 

To find my books, check your favourite online bookseller, or try either of these links.

http://www.amazon.com/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1340847276&sr=1-1

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Samray

  

 

 

Changes to the Racial Discrimination Act

Australia.










The Racial Discrimination Act 1975, as it stands,  stifles free speech, and limits the capacity to solve social problems because discussion has to be so carefully expressed that it becomes useless.  

There are changes proposed that would remove the clause that allows a person to make a complaint because they feel 'offended.' In other words, because their feelings are hurt. Unlike the laws against slander or libel, being factual in the 'offensive' statement is no defence.

The changes retain and strengthen the law against incitement to violence against a person because of his/her race, and against intimidation. 

This is what is proposed: 

Attorney-General for Australia
Minister for the Arts
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC

Government Media Release, 25^th March, 2014.
Racial Discrimination Act

25 March 2014

The Government Party Room this morning approved reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act), which will strengthen the Act’s protections against racism, while at the same time removing provisions which unreasonably limit freedom of speech.

The legislation will repeal section 18C of the Act, as well as sections 18B, 18D, and 18E.

A new section will be inserted into the Act which will preserve the existing protection against intimidation and create a new protection from racial vilification.  This will be the first time that racial vilification is proscribed in Commonwealth legislation sending a clear message that it is unacceptable in the Australian community.

I have always said that freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification are not inconsistent objectives. Laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.

This is an important reform and a key part of the Government’s freedom agenda. It sends a strong message about the kind of society that we want to live in where freedom of speech is able to flourish and racial vilification and intimidation are not tolerated.

Exposure Draft

Freedom of speech (Repeal of S. 18C) Bill 2014

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is amended as follows:

1.       Section 18C is repealed.

2.       Sections 18B, 18D and 18E are also repealed.

3.       The following section is inserted:

 “ It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is reasonably likely:  to vilify another person or a group of persons; or  to intimidate another person or a group of persons,

and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of persons.

2.       For the purposes of this section:   vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons; intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm to a person or to the property of a person or to the members of a group of persons.

3.       Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

4.       This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

(a few minor punctuation points of the above have been changed from the original direct copy) 

Particularly important points: 

 

'Laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.'

 

and  Whether an act is reasonably likely to (vilify or intimidate) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

 
In essence, the changes to the act would mean that  a person or group cannot complain merely because they feel offended or insulted.  


The act as it stands, does indeed limit free speech.

It limits little things  -  I was standing next to my fishpond, and talking aloud to the goldfish. One was black, and I said something like, 'Hi there, black feller.' Now 'feller' is just a casual term for a male, and black, of course, because it was black. But then I cringed. Had the Aboriginal family next door heard?  Would they be offended?  They shouldn't be - there's nothing wrong with being a 'blackfeller,'  not a thing to be ashamed of,  nothing to be insulted about. And yet, they could claim offence and it could even be feasible to make a complaint.  

How very silly.

It also limits big things. There are some very big problems among specific races and cultures now in Australia, some home grown, many imported from overseas. The first requirement of attacking a problem is to define and to understand the problem. That cannot be done if people cannot air the facts in case someone claims to be offended.

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt outside court.
Photo: Vince Caligiuri

The proposed changes came about after the commentator, Andrew Bolt, was deemed to have broken the law when he wrote about fair-skinned people who choose to identify as Aboriginal.

Andrew Bolt’s article (2009)  has not been reproduced here  in case it gets me into trouble as it did Andrew Bolt. In essence, it points out that claiming Aboriginal heritage, no matter how far removed and unlikely, can give real advantages to those who choose to do so. There are jobs and there are awards in the arts only open to Aboriginal people.  Bolt named several individuals who have received such advantages even when their Aboriginal heritage is not readily apparent. I’ve seen claims that there were factual errors in what he said. Maybe there are, maybe there are not.

He was sued.  He lost the case.

But I know it does happen.  
Here are two examples from my own personal experience

1.       An acquaintance of mine once boasted to me that if she chose, she could claim she was Aboriginal because she knew someone who was Aboriginal and who would be prepared to  say that she was also a part of that Aboriginal community. That was one requirement satisfied. She said nothing about the other requirement – an ancestor who was Aboriginal. 

      A few years later, she made her claim that she was Aboriginal. This was 1980s, almost as ‘politically correct’ a time as now.  It would not have been acceptable for the government employee who looked at the claim  to demand further proof  than a statement by herself and by her acquaintance. And it certainly would not have been acceptable to point out her fair skin and red hair, or the fact that she was never known as Aboriginal as a child and nor were her parents.

      So her claim was accepted, she did some sort of course in Aboriginal Counselling, and  then applied for and was appointed to a well paid government job that had been set aside for Aboriginal applicants only.  It only lasted a couple of years  – I don’t know why.

2.       Another acquaintance, an immigrant from Holland. She was married to an immigrant from England. So how did their son manage to be on the government assistance, Abstudy,  rather than Austudy?  (Abstudy was for Aboriginal children.)   I have no idea how she claimed her son was Aboriginal.

 

 We come in all colours.  Colour does not make us unequal.  Sometimes, culture does. We must be able to discuss aspects of our culture that are bad for us and bad for our country. And whenever someone objects, if what was said is factual, then that has to be a total defence.

Some cultural practices are bad.  Simply bad.  Some defend the mutilation of the genitals of girls, for instance, by saying it is 'culture.' Forced marriage, underage marriage - aspects of culture.

from Wikipaedia.
The ideal length for a bound foot was three inches

Remember that the Chinese used to cripple girl children by binding their feet so that they grew up with tiny, dainty feet that men found sexy?  It was culture.  It was condemned, and the practice fell out of favour. No little girls are crippled in that way any more. 

But what if it was happening now?  Would we be afraid to speak of it because that would imply that the Chinese culture was inferior?



We must be able to discuss problems. We must be able to discuss other cultures and what they do right and what we find very wrong. We have to be able to breathe freely. This amendment is sensible, it is just, it is needed.

 


Andrew Bolt concluded in his article:

Let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?

Sounds a great idea to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The right to an opinion.

In her biography on Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall  wrote the phrase:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

(often misattributed to Voltaire himself,  Wikipaedia)



But now?  


The National Basketball Association on Tuesday imposed a lifetime ban on Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, delivering an unexpectedly robust set of sanctions for racist comments that may also compel the real estate billionaire to sell his team.

The NBA commissioner, Adam Silver, said at a news conference in New York that an inquiry had established that Sterling expressed the remarks heard on a leaked recording, which were “contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multi-ethnic league”.

Silver said that the 80-year-old billionaire would also be fined $2.5m, the maximum allowed under the NBA's unpublished constitution, and that he would now press the NBA's governing body of other team owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers.

Directly quoted from Jon Swaine in New York,  theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 April 2014 04.19 AEST


But this was a private conversation.  PRIVATE.   It was secretly filmed and then publicised, so then Sterling is in trouble.

But is this right?  Is this fair?

We are entitled to our opinions, and the spying on and reporting of private conversations is what makes a police state - think Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, present day North Korea.  It does not matter what opinions we have, we are entitled to them, and we are entitled to air them in conversation.

His punishment -

A series of major corporate sponsors involved with the Clippers announced over the weekend that they were breaking their associations with the team. Silver said on Tuesday: “This has been a painful moment for all in the NBA family. I appreciate the support and understanding of our players during this process.”

Donald Sterling

Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star, mayor of Sacramento and an adviser to the National Basketball Players Association, said Sterling’s punishment should serve as a warning to "every bigot in this country".

"It doesn't matter if you are a professional basketball player worth millions of dollars, or a man or woman who works hard for their family," Johnson said at a press conference. "There will be zero tolerance for institutional racism, no matter how rich or powerful."

Johnson had said earlier on Tuesday that the players’ union urged Silver to inflict “the most severe sanctions possible” on Sterling.

Eric Garcetti, the Los Angeles, mayor, also praised Silver’s announcement. "Those are exactly the sorts of strong statements we need to stand up against these hateful comments," Garcetti told CNN.

Directly quoted from Jon Swaine in New York,  theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 April 2014 04.19 AEST


But what law did he actually break?

Maybe we should look at the ex-girlfriend's conduct.  Is secretly filming a private conversation  against the law?  Maybe it should be. 

Deliberately making trouble for her - what is he - her sponsor?  her john?   That was nasty and it was spiteful.

I do not agree with his sentiments. In this climate, I doubt if anyone would have the foolishness or the courage to come out and say that they did, though I have no doubt that Sterling is not alone.  Instead, anyone with a public profile will jump on the bandwagon and also condemn him. 

But I'm not talking about whether he is right or wrong or whether you agree or do not agree, he has a right to his opinion.  He is entitled to say what he thinks. 


As Voltaire didn't actually say: 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

Offended? Really?

There seems to be a new career or maybe hobby proliferating these days - that of becoming 'offended' at something, and making a huge fuss about it. The mistake comes when people pander to the 'offended,' even when some of the 'offences'  are not offences to any reasonable person.

Here are some of the most ludicrous examples I've come across recently:

The first:

  This is a direct copy from News Limited Network, April 02, 2013, 10.50am.

Lego withdraws 'anti-Islamic' Star Wars Jabba the Hutt palace model from sale after complaints

TOY giant Lego has reportedly agreed to stop producing a Star Wars toy product Muslims find offensive.

According to Britain's Independent newspaper, Lego agreed to withdraw the Jabba’s Palace product from production in 2014 to appease those who think it depicts Istanbul's Hagia Sophia, a church-turned-mosque, which is now a museum and one of the city's top tourist attractions.

Muslim groups also said the watchtower/spire of the toy palace - a Lego version of Hutt Castle, a monastery-turned-palace belonging to crime lord Jabba the Hutt - resembled the minaret of a Beirut mosque.

The Turkish Community Forum, which issued the complaint, also said the Lego version of Jabba himself - a giant slug-like gangster who enslaves Princess Leia in Return of the Jedi - resembled a “terrorist” who “likes to smoke hookah and have his victims killed”.

Complaints about the Lego set were first aired in January when the case came to light when a Turkish man expressed his dissatisfaction with the toy after it was purchased for his son by a family member.

After investigating, Dr Melissa Günes, General Secretary of the Turkish Cultural Community, said that Lego had been contacted with an official complaint.

Initially, Lego responded by saying: "The product is however not based on any real building but on a fictional building from a scene in the movie Star Wars Episode VI"

But then they conceded.  How utterly ridiculous.

 The Second:

 From Racenet.com.au  'Your trusted racing resource'

Brad Waters
18/07/2012

Complaint forces name change for Blackman

The David Hayes stable says a complaint resulted in an order from the Registrar of Racehorses to change the name of the impressive debut winner Blackman.

Charles Blackman and the filly, Blackman now 'Lady Blackman'

Blackman, a two-year-old filly by Excellent Art, was named after the famed Australian artist Charles Blackman, whose work has sold for more than $1 million at auction in recent years.

The two-year-old led all the way before beating older horses in decisive fashion at the Geelong Synthetic track on July 10.

Lindsay Park racing manager Jason Timperley said the Euroa stable was surprised to receive a call from the Registrar Of Racehorses wanting to change the two-year-old's name.

"It was a real surprise to get the call to change the name, especially because it was due to one complaint," he said. "We would have thought that any issues would have arisen before she raced and won at Geelong."

Messages condemning the name change flooded Lindsay Park's Twitter feed, @lindsayparkrace, when the organisation publicised the situation on Wednesday morning. Melbourne celebrity John Blackman contacted Lindsay Park to support the camp.

"I am outraged (and so is my wife)," Blackman tweeted. "Political correctness gone absolutely crazy. BTW, I backed Blackman last week so there."

However, Myles Foreman, the chief executive of Racing Information Services Australia said the Registrar Of Racehorses and Lindsay Park agreed to change the filly's name to Lady Blackman.

"There is a provision in the rules that the registrar retains the right to change a horse's name if it deems it necessary," he said. "Concerns were raised about the horse's name but we have tried to balance the needs of everyone involved.

"I have read the tweets and was surprised at the comments. We engaged in a consultative process with the owners and key contacts at the stable to achieve the right outcome.

"There was an agreement from the horse's owners to change her name to Lady Blackman."

Foreman said such occurrences were "very infrequent" when considering owners and trainers presented more than 54,000 names to the Registrar of Racehorses for consideration every year.

But 'black' is a colour. It is not an insult. A black man is a man who is black. There is no hint that black is somehow inferior, it is just a description. Perhaps it is those that think 'Blackman' is some sort of insult and 'offensive' are those who are racist. Black is not inferior to white. If a horse is black or a dog or even a goldfish, call it black. If a man is black, he is black. It is not wrong to describe him as such.  The silly thing is that it is often not the supposed-to-be-offended who complain, but someone else on their behalf. Any self-respecting black man would just laugh at this silly, silly, SILLY cave-in to a very silly complainant.

The Third:

Tim Mathieson, the partner of our Prime Minister, made a light-hearted remark about the routine examination for prostate cancer - something about hoping for a female Asian doctor rather than a big chap with a big finger.  I could never work out exactly who this was supposed to offend. Asians are generally smaller than other races, and would have smaller fingers. Women are mostly smaller than men and have smaller fingers.  This is simple fact. Pacific Islanders tend to be enormous. These are racial differences. It is not 'racist' to acknowledge the facts of differences. No-one is saying that any race is better than another - just that in some circumstances, a smaller finger has definite advantages. 

Really long thing fingers would be even better for this purpose, as in some depictions of aliens, but I've yet to meet an ET type qualified doctor.

And yet, for this light-hearted remark that was totally innoffensive to any reasonable being, poor Tim was expected to offer a grovelling apology.  
 The Bigpond Home Page:  PM admits her bloke's joke was poor

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 » 08:11pm  

Prime Minister Julia Gillard agrees her partner's joke about prostate cancer and Asian women was in poor taste and says he did the right thing in apologising.
Tim Mathieson landed in hot water after delivering the joke to members of the West Indian cricket team at a reception at The Lodge in Canberra on Monday, as Ms Gillard stood behind him.
'We can get a blood test for it but the digital examination is the only true way to get a correct reading on your prostate so make sure you go and do that, and perhaps look for a small Asian female doctor is probably the best way,' he joked.
While the joke did attract some laughs, others were not amused. Federal Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer said the joke was tasteless, inappropriate and lacked judgment.
Mr Mathieson was quick to apologise.
'It was meant as a joke and on reflection I accept it was in poor taste,' he said in a brief statement issued by the prime minister's office on Tuesday.
'I apologise for any offence caused.'
Ms Gillard said her partner was passionate about promoting men's health but the joke did warrant an apology.
'He could have picked his words a lot better and he has apologised for it,' she told reporters in Canberra.
Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia chief executive Anthony Lowe downplayed the gaffe, saying Mr Mathieson was a strong advocate for men's health.
'Men often use humour to deal with difficult or embarrassing issues like the digital rectum examination,' Dr Lowe told AAP.
'I'm sure he meant it in a light-hearted way of getting the message across. Of course it's a little bit unfortunate, the words he used.'
However, Dr Lowe did question the accuracy of Mr Mathieson's advice.
'Neither test is perfect but we would recommend that men over 50 talk to their doctor about getting both the blood test and the physical examination,' he said.
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis said while the joke was 'slightly unfortunate' he believed the episode highlighted that political correctness had gone too far.
'The joke was in poor taste but that having been said, I don't think we want to have in this country a culture of finger-wagging and confected outrage,' he said.
But Australian Greens leader Christine Milne, who was at the function on Monday, said it was good for people to think twice about their off-the-cuff remarks.
'Whilst part of our culture is larrikinism, it has led to some pretty unfortunate consequences in the way people tend to express that,' she told reporters in Canberra.



And what else?  'Merry Christmas' that has become 'Happy Holiday,' objections to an Easter bonnet parade, objections to flying the Australian flag.  It is time to tell people to develop a thicker skin.  As George Brandis said in relation to the joke about digital prostate examiniations, we do not want to develop   "a culture of finger-wagging and confected outrage."  Because I do not believe that a lot of this 'being offended' is genuine. It simply gives some people a sense of power to inconvenience others.

So next time someone says that he is offended, when no reasonable person would be offended - 

 

And do not consider pandering to the twit.