When has political correctness gone too far?

[Eki]

I think one Finnish university researcher got pretty close, when she compared the Finnish National Anthem to hate speech and claimed that it promotes and encourages nationalism and xenophobia. What do you think?

Our Land
(translation from the Finnish version)

Oh our land, Finland, fatherland,
echo loudly, golden word!
No valley, no hill,
no water, shore more dear
than this northern homeland,
this precious land of our fathers.
One day from your bud
you will bloom;
From our love shall rise
your hope, glorious joy,
and once in song, fatherland
higher still will ring.

[Bob Riebe]

She is a moron.

[donKey jote]

can't have been a True Finn :p

[Mark]

Erm, not at all.

[A.F.F.]

Who was this researcher?

[markabilly]

eki

[Knock-on]

It's gone too far when it's PC gone mad (shhhh, don't tell Ben ;) )

[Eki]

Who was this researcher?
Taru Leppänen from University of Turku:

Yllyttääkö Maamme-laulu vihapuheeseen? - MTV3.fi - Uutiset - Kotimaa (http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2011/08/1378416/yllyttaako-maamme-laulu-vihapuheeseen)

[Eki]

Last year Canadians discussed if their National Anthem was sexist:

O Canada lyrics to be reviewed - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2010/03/03/o-canada-anthem.html)


Parliament is to be asked to review the "original gender-neutral wording of the national anthem," says the throne speech delivered by Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean on Wednesday.
O Canada includes the lyrics "true patriot love in all thy sons command," and there may be interest in changing that line to something more inclusive.

O Canada official lyrics

O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee

[Bolton Midnight]

These folk have too much time on their hand and too much tax payers money, take them outside and shoot them, only solution.

Rebellious Scots to crush

Now that is a proper national anthem

[Jared East]

Pc is always to far. People say that about the US national anthem all the time. "African American" used to piss my ex off some much because she was Jamaican. I really really hate that stuff. ESPN cut Hank Williams for saying Obama playing golf with the republican house leader was like Hitler playing golf with Benjamin Netanyahu. He didn't compare Hitler and Obama, Im just glad when ESPN offered him his job back he stood up and told them where they could put their job.

Free Speech is Free Speech even if you don't agree with what is being said !

[schmenke]

Last year Canadians discussed if their National Anthem was sexist:

O Canada lyrics to be reviewed - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2010/03/03/o-canada-anthem.html)

O Canada official lyrics

No. Those are not the official lyrics.

[Alexamateo]

When has political correctness gone too far?

Answer: It's gone too far when sports stories here called Lewis Hamilton the first African-American to win a Formula 1 race.

[Eki]

Answer: It's gone too far when sports stories here called Lewis Hamilton the first African-American to win a Formula 1 race.
That's probably ignorance gone too far. The correct term would be Afro-Caribbean-European.

[Bolton Midnight]

Yeah that's not political correctness it's just being a bit stupid.

[gloomyDAY]

Just another ugly fat girl drawing attention to herself.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What? The Finnish nation has no place in the brave new world of alternative lifestylers, economically challenged people, proud minorities, siucide freedom fighters etc. etc. etc.? That's too bad...

[nigelred5]

....about a half an hour after the term political correctness was coined.

[edv]

We used to grow crops around here known for generations as rape (rapeseed).
Now we have to call it canola.

[BDunnell]

Free Speech is Free Speech even if you don't agree with what is being said !

I am not in favour of it being deemed acceptable for people to say absolutely anything. There are always limits.

[Mark]

Very odd! As far as I know we still call it Oil Seed Rape.

[BDunnell]

Very odd! As far as I know we still call it Oil Seed Rape.

Exactly — and I bet no edict has been issued to the contrary, anywhere.

[Mark]

I am not in favour of it being deemed acceptable for people to say absolutely anything. There are always limits.

And of course it's freedom of speech, not free speech. Plus that only means that the government does not have the power to stop you criticising them; it doesn't necessarily extend beyond that.

[BDunnell]

And of course it's freedom of speech, not free speech. Plus that only means that the government does not have the power to stop you criticising them; it doesn't necessarily extend beyond that.

I sometimes wonder how those who rant about the way in which 'you can't say anything nowadays' would like it were the outspokenness they so desire to use in relation to others to be directed at them or their loved ones.

[Bob Riebe]

We used to grow crops around here known for generations as rape (rapeseed).
Now we have to call it canola.I was told by a seed salesman at the Minn. State Fair, Canola, is a patented variety of rapeseed.

[Rollo]

And of course it's freedom of speech, not free speech. Plus that only means that the government does not have the power to stop you criticising them; it doesn't necessarily extend beyond that.

"'Free' in itself is vague and indeterminate. It must take its colour from the context. Compare, for instance, its use in free speech, free love, free dinner and free trade. Free speech does not mean free speech; it means speech hedged in by all the laws against defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth; it means freedom governed by law."
-[James vs Commonwealth of Australia 1936 (2) AER 1449 at 1473 PC]

We've been through a case that's brought this up in recent weeks in Australia with Andrew Bolt a New Ltd. journalist writing several articles accusing an aboriginal lady of claiming aboriginality merely to claim government benefits. The articles were untrue.

Andrew Bolt says free speech lost as court finds he breached racial discrimination act | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/andrew-bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226148978809)
A COURT* has found News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act.

Justice Mordy Bromberg found Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two articles on racial identity which contained "errors in fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language", reported the Herald Sun.
- Herald Sun, September 28, 2011
*The court was the Federal Court of Australia.

If free speech was totally free you could write deliberate lies about people or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre etc.

[BDunnell]

If free speech was totally free you could write deliberate lies about people or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre etc.

Instead of which, people generally use a degree of common sense and basic decency, and desist from such behaviour.

[Eki]

I was told by a seed salesman at the Minn. State Fair, Canola, is a patented variety of rapeseed.
That sucks. Someday we'll have to call vacuum cleaner a hoover or copy machine a xerox.

[Bob Riebe]

If free speech was totally free you could write deliberate lies about people or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre etc.

NO, simply because you could be breaking other laws.

The asinine fire in a theatre bs, A: disturbing the peace; B: Deliberate lie which could cause paninc, possibly lead to physical harm and destruction of property; C: deliberate false alarm.
The U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to cause any of the above.

[Eki]

NO, simply because you could be breaking other laws.

The asinine fire in a theatre bs, A: disturbing the peace; B: Deliberate lie which could cause paninc, possibly lead to physical harm and destruction of property; C: deliberate false alarm.
The U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to cause any of the above.
Well, you can always write new "other laws", like making criticizing the government illegal. Criticizing the government can lead to violent demonstrations and popular uprisings that can possibly lead to physical harm and destruction of property or even disturb the peace.

[BDunnell]

NO, simply because you could be breaking other laws.

On which grounds, in your eyes, would these 'other laws' be viewed as legitimate, when those relating to seatbelts, helmets, etc apparently are not?

[Rollo]

NO, simply because you could be breaking other laws.

The asinine fire in a theatre bs, A: disturbing the peace; B: Deliberate lie which could cause paninc, possibly lead to physical harm and destruction of property; C: deliberate false alarm.
The U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to cause any of the above.

I know; if you'd bothered to read the rest of the post, you'd have known that I knew it.

Oh, and lest we forget:
The Italian Hall Disaster, Calumet, Michigan (http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/emi3d31e.htm)
The Italian Hall Disaster in Calumet, Michigan occured during the copper mine strikes on Christmas Eve in 1913. It was a benefit Christmas party for the children of striking miners in Calumet.
The program was in the upstairs of the Italian Hall. During the program a man, or men, opened the doors at the bottom of the stairs leading outside and yelled "Fire". The participants of the party, mostly children, rushed down the stairs and tried to get out. There was no fire.
The doors opened inward and the first children there were crushed against the doors. More and more came down the stairs. It was believed that strike breakers, hired by the mine captains who did this, but no one was ever found nor convicted. All that died, died of suffocation.

I suppose that the deaths of 73 people is what Mr Riebe might call "The asinine fire in a theatre bs".

[SGWilko]

Very odd! As far as I know we still call it Oil Seed Rape.

Isn't it called Rapeseed, from which is extracted Rapeseed Oil?

[Bob Riebe]

What about chosing not to wear a seat belt and then killing the person sat in front of you due to your actions? Freedom starts to turn a little sour when we realise its not all about running across the wide open planes with an American flag cape, singing Sweet Home Alabama, and stubbing out our fags on the foreheads of clueless politicians.And this could happen how?
You are grasping at straws in desperation.

Radios should be banned in automobiles then as they could distract a driver, or changing of radios station should be only capable of being changed when the car is not in motion.
That would be your silly standard.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, you can always write new "other laws", like making criticizing the government illegal. Criticizing the government can lead to violent demonstrations and popular uprisings that can possibly lead to physical harm and destruction of property or even disturb the peace.

I think Pres. Obama and the Dem. have tried to float that boat concerning Fox news and Limbaugh.

[Bob Riebe]

On which grounds, in your eyes, would these 'other laws' be viewed as legitimate, when those relating to seatbelts, helmets, etc apparently are not?Their is no analogy there.
IF there is, please clarify how.

[BDunnell]

Their is no analogy there.
IF there is, please clarify how.

Simply answering that 'there is no analogy' is not, with respect, an answer. Instead it betrays your refusal to engage in discussion with anyone who disagrees with you. It is quite obvious to me — you seem to recognise some laws as legitimate and not others.

[Bob Riebe]

I know; if you'd bothered to read the rest of the post, you'd have known that I knew it.

Oh, and lest we forget:
The Italian Hall Disaster, Calumet, Michigan (http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/emi3d31e.htm)
The Italian Hall Disaster in Calumet, Michigan occured during the copper mine strikes on Christmas Eve in 1913. It was a benefit Christmas party for the children of striking miners in Calumet.
The program was in the upstairs of the Italian Hall. During the program a man, or men, opened the doors at the bottom of the stairs leading outside and yelled "Fire". The participants of the party, mostly children, rushed down the stairs and tried to get out. There was no fire.
The doors opened inward and the first children there were crushed against the doors. More and more came down the stairs. It was believed that strike breakers, hired by the mine captains who did this, but no one was ever found nor convicted. All that died, died of suffocation.

I suppose that the deaths of 73 people is what Mr Riebe might call "The asinine fire in a theatre bs".This has what to do with the legal statement I wrote?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with breaking laws. It is granted in the Constitution.
That some political parties hate that fact and try to alter certain Constitutional freedoms is what really matters.
The asinine, "well you cannot yell fire in a theater" is a bogus thing usualy thrown out in desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric.

[Bob Riebe]

Isn't it called Rapeseed, from which is extracted Rapeseed Oil?In the U.S. pc news commentators and others call it Canola whether or not it is derived from the Canola strain or not.

[BDunnell]

The asinine, "well you cannot yell fire in a theater" is a bogus thing usualy thrown out in desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric.

As opposed to the rigour you show in so doing?

[Bob Riebe]

As opposed to the rigour you show in so doing?I do not recall ever crying fire in a theater. Have you?

[Bob Riebe]

Hardly. My viewpoint is shared by the vast majority of people and supported by laws already in place. I think that says it all. The person here arguing that laws in place to save their lives are a breach of their freedom is infact the one who is desperately clutching at straws out of what appears to be an inferiority complex.

Give me proof of this vast majority.
I would say it is more like your viewpoint is shared by a large group who out of fear or ignorance huddle in a corner for fear big-brother will be knocking on their door.

Your ignorance of big-brother laws being illegal at face value is obvious, as proven by helment laws being over-turned, along with "safety" fire-arm laws being over-turned by the Second Amendment.
Had the seat-belt people had the same organized base as the helmet people, such laws would cease to exist also, but there is no money to forward such a case.

Nice try bunky but no cigar.

[BDunnell]

I would say it is more like your viewpoint is shared by a large group who out of fear or ignorance huddle in a corner for fear big-brother will be knocking on their door.

Says the person clearly fearful of the unlikely prospect of totalitarianism developing out of seat belt laws.

[Bob Riebe]

Says the person clearly fearful of the unlikely prospect of totalitarianism developing out of seat belt laws.Says the person who cannot contribute to threads except to attack posters who do not share his foolish attitudes.

[BDunnell]

Says the person who cannot contribute to threads except to attack posters who do not share his foolish attitudes.

Very good!

[Rollo]

This has what to do with the legal statement I wrote?

It proves that there are caveats and boundaries on "unlimited" freedom.


Freedom of speech has nothing to do with breaking laws. It is granted in the Constitution.
That some political parties hate that fact and try to alter certain Constitutional freedoms is what really matters.
The asinine, "well you cannot yell fire in a theater" is a bogus thing usualy thrown out in desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric.

Desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric? Hardly, I have the weight of the Supreme Court behind me; Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) upholds the principle.

SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U. S. 47 :: Volume 249 :: 1919 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez (http://supreme.justia.com/us/249/47/case.html)
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Mar 3 1919, Supreme Court of the United States.

[BDunnell]

It proves that there are caveats and boundaries on "unlimited" freedom.

Which, once again, goes back to the question as to how (presumably) Bob would defend, and even make use of, certain laws, while considering others to be illegitimate curbs on freedom.

[Knock-on]

Bobs laws are sacrosanct; even bequeathed by God!!!

Apart from the crappy little ones he doesn't agree with and against his 'uman rites!!!!!

[Bob Riebe]

It proves that there are caveats and boundaries on "unlimited" freedom.



Desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric? Hardly, I have the weight of the Supreme Court behind me; Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) upholds the principle.

SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U. S. 47 :: Volume 249 :: 1919 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez (http://supreme.justia.com/us/249/47/case.html)
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Mar 3 1919, Supreme Court of the United States.Because they are breaking laws by shouting such a lie.
Shizzam is that not a revelation!

Show me where I said one has the right to shout fire in a theatre.
If you cannot, what is your point?

[Bob Riebe]

Bobs laws are sacrosanct; even bequeathed by God!!!

Apart from the crappy little ones he doesn't agree with and against his 'uman rites!!!!!

Definition of SACROSANCT
1: most sacred or holy : inviolable
2: treated as if holy

Sorry young fella but you got me mixed up with Chuck's "natural rights."
That's OK, I am sure a lot of this is not covered in your schooling but I am sure glad you tried to use a big word.

[Rollo]

Show me where I said one has the right to shout fire in a theatre.
If you cannot, what is your point?

Done:


The asinine, "well you cannot yell fire in a theater" is a bogus thing usualy thrown out in desperation for lack of ability to defend one's rhetoric.

[Bob Riebe]

Done:It is a bogus Cliché, used out of desperation as their rhetoric is so weak they cannot defend iit with facts.
Now show me where I said it is OK. It does not say that here.

[Dave B]

Has anybody got any popcorn?

[Knock-on]

Definition of SACROSANCT
1: most sacred or holy : inviolable
2: treated as if holy

Sorry young fella but you got me mixed up with Chuck's "natural rights."
That's OK, I am sure a lot of this is not covered in your schooling but I am sure glad you tried to use a big word.

I have no idea of your age Bob but would hope that you would have learnt by now to use a reputable dictionary.


sac·ro·sanct
 
adjective
1.
extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2.
not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.
3.
above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscript deemed sacrosanct.

Sacrosanct | Define Sacrosanct at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrosanct)

or perhaps you prefer


adjective

(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with:the individual’s right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct

definition of sacrosanct from Oxford Dictionaries Online (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sacrosanct)

Before trying to pick me upon the correct use of a word, do me a favour and get your facts right otherwise you will end up looking a bloody idiot.

[SGWilko]

Has anybody got any popcorn?

Sweet or savoury?

[Bob Riebe]

I have no idea of your age Bob but would hope that you would have learnt by now to use a reputable dictionary.



Sacrosanct | Define Sacrosanct at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrosanct)

or perhaps you prefer



definition of sacrosanct from Oxford Dictionaries Online (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sacrosanct)

Before trying to pick me upon the correct use of a word, do me a favour and get your facts right otherwise you will end up looking a bloody idiot.Merriam and Webster, which I used, would be ranked above your Dic. dot com, if you are going to go by scholarly rank with the OED being number one.
If you want to read an interesting item, if it can be found on-line, The Dictionary battles that took place fifty some years ago that led to the split between some leading members in the Dictionary world is rather interesting.

As your rhetoric of my writing was at best wrong, and foolishness on most days, what is your point?

[Knock-on]

Merriam and Webster, which I used, would be ranked above your Dic. dot com, if you are going to go by scholarly rank with the OED being number one.
If you want to read an interesting item, if it can be found on-line, The Dictionary battles that took place fifty some years ago that led to the split between some leading members in the Dictionary world is rather interesting.

As your rhetoric of my writing was at best wrong, and foolishness on most days, what is your point?

:laugh:

I would rather not get drawn into a rather anal discussion on which dictionary is best. I just used an online one Oxford to point out the error of your post :laugh:

As you seem to be someone on here that is confused at best and badly Trolling at worse, I think I will leave this here. Good luck :kiss:

[BDunnell]

The fact that the choice not to wear any of these safety devices has been taken away from me doesn't bother me one iota. I'm intelliegent enough to want to follow the guidelines in the first place so being paranoid my freedom is being taken away from me is irrelevant.

Exactly! What people want in these cases is the freedom to be stupid, ignoring the fact that said stupid behaviour can have consequences for others.

[Bob Riebe]

The fact that the choice not to wear any of these safety devices has been taken away from me doesn't bother me one iota. I'm intelliegent enough to want to follow the guidelines in the first place so being paranoid my freedom is being taken away from me is irrelevant.You are not in the U.S. so that attitude can be expected, to at least a degree but while do not think you to be stupid by any chance, you are saying, more or less, "I am too stupid to think for my self, and need the government to force to what I am too stupid to do without penalty of law."

The U.S. was formed out of the freedom to use one's own discretion as to how one leads one's own life. (Unlike Chuck's presumption of natural rights, I was not told of such an item, but being raised in a church going community, the Ten Commandments were drilled into me, and my neighborhood friends, quite regulary.)

When youths would pee and moan after thinking they were cheated, by another kid, parents would tell us, "buyer beware" it is up to you to be careful. Mommy and daddy are not always going to be there to save you from your own stupidity.

We were told through high school to be careful as we, and no one else, were responsible for our actions. Freedom of choice meant freedom to be stupid but expect to pay the penalty for stupid choices.

So if you are happy to be protected from your-self, fine. Your system is not our system.
I do not accept the corruption of our Constitutional freedoms and never will. I deal with such big-brother laws as I see best, depending on the local, and situation.

[Bob Riebe]

:laugh:

I would rather not get drawn into a rather anal discussion on which dictionary is best. I just used an online one Oxford to point out the error of your post :laugh:

As you seem to be someone on here that is confused at best and badly Trolling at worse, I think I will leave this here. Good luck :kiss: Thank you, as that come from one who appears to be a legend in his own mind. http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Lousada]

I'm quite happy with laws insisting on you wearing a motorcycle helmet, a seat belt, and children in child seats as are most people. I think most people in the UK are and to my knowledge nobody has tried to reverse such laws. Why would they want to is my question? Car accidents are common on the roads and people want to be as safe as possible which is why they wear a seat belt. Riding a motorcycle is a dangerous activity especially on our small island and you are 80% more likely to die if you have an accident a recent study said. People want their chances to be increased so they wear a helmet. Parents love their little bundles of joy so they put them in child seats rather than having the experience of watching those daer to them flying through the windscreen of the car should they have an accident. The fact that the choice not to wear any of these safety devices has been taken away from me doesn't bother me one iota. I'm intelliegent enough to want to follow the guidelines in the first place so being paranoid my freedom is being taken away from me is irrelevant.

I think you are a bit naive here. If everyone was so conscious about their safety there wouldn't have been a need for seatbelt laws in the firstplace. It blows my mind but I know quite a few people who feel the same way as Bob. I guess people always think they are invincible.

[janvanvurpa]

I have no idea of your age Bob but would hope that you would have learnt by now to use a reputable dictionary.



Sacrosanct | Define Sacrosanct at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrosanct)

or perhaps you prefer



definition of sacrosanct from Oxford Dictionaries Online (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sacrosanct)

Before trying to pick me upon the correct use of a word, do me a favour and get your facts right otherwise you will end up looking a bloody idiot.



Wait! You mean he's not?

Damn, learn something new every day.

[Bob Riebe]

Wait! You mean he's not?

Damn, learn something new every day.I'm not but your post shows you probably are.

[Eki]

Some taxi drivers tend not to wear them and their excuse is they are uncomfortable to wear for long periods,
I don't notice the seat belt when I'm wearing it, but I feel uncomfortable driving without it. I feel kind of naked and it's a nagging feeling that something is missing. So I'm opposite to those taxi drivers. It's an acquired habit both ways.

[Knock-on]

Wait! You mean he's not?

Damn, learn something new every day.

The Laws (rules) on this forum forbid me calling him a bloody idiot and despite what I would prefer to do, I respect that I'm not allowed to call him a bloody idiot even when it's patently obvious to everyone what he is.

:)

[Bob Riebe]

The Laws (rules) on this forum forbid me calling him a bloody idiot and despite what I would prefer to do, I respect that I'm not allowed to call him a bloody idiot even when it's patently obvious to everyone what he is.

:) Well son let's bring this to your level--"I am rubber, you are glue, everything you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you."http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Now you can say--"I know I'm not but what about you?"-- and this will go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on....

[Bolton Midnight]

Odd that it seems a very one way street this whole freedom of speech thing, say re grooming gangs in Britain they aren't allowed to state facts re ethnic background as it would be deemed racists yet it is acceptable for folk to march threatening death to infidels, most strange.

And interesting to see politicians from both sides wanting to use the phone hacking thing to gag the press, pay back for releasing the expenses scandal of course.