EU Commission to Propose Ban on all Discrimination - Am I Missing Something Here?

I must be, because this article seems to make sense (The first part anyway, not all that twitter about children and predators) but I cannot help but have the niggling feeling something is rather amiss!

I am a staunch supporter against any sort of vicious discrimination and have been for many years once I realised how irrational it is as an idea ( I was about 8). However, discrimination seems to have become interchangeable with giving offence or upsetting someone, confused with hate speech I suppose and that is more than a little worrying. Some people need to be offended, grossly in some cases, and it should be a pleasure not a crime.

Having read this article in NME I wondered whether Tescos motivation was commercial or because they did not want to offend the touchier elements of society. I suspect both, but would like to know the ratio.

Not more than a few weeks after a teenager was arrested for calling Scientology a cult the EU announces the above initiative and with only one exception I can see that the whole thing makes sense. Its the protection of religion I have a problem with. It should say "status" surely (though perhaps that is equally unworkable), then any discrimination against anyone would be technically illegal be they fat, a smoker, Muslim, Christian, gay or otherwise. Why specifically religion?

I am confused by the element of choice, that is what's causing me the jitters, you choose your religion, and when we are unable to take the piss out of them, keep them out of our schools and away from children or banish them from the political process via directly verbally attacking, an often horrendous group of organisations that hide under the banner of religion, then free speech is curtailed at the expense of causing others pain and suffering in the name of some God or other.

My previous blog outlining the Irish attitude to homosexuality could be a case in point, how much stink would have been caused if she had stated that a nice psychiatrist friend of hers could help you not be Muslim?

The problem with setting aloft ideology as something in need of protection does little to unwind the mass of problems that the PC brigade have caused in the UK over the last decade. It also does nothing for the ideology it is protecting. I find it hard to believe that Islam, Christianity or any other of the major faiths cannot stick up for themselves after thousands of years and there is a certain arrogance about our society thinking they cannot.

That said Britain is a secular society on the whole and we must distinguish between discrimination that is direct and damaging, from perceived discrimination because something someone has chosen to believe in is given a good kicking by an opponent of that ideology.

Whatever ideology it be, I want to see a continued and robust attack upon the most extreme elements that many have a tendency to display. The extremists (or haters, take yer pick)that use scripture to peddle nonsense need to be pulled to pieces, and we must not allow laws that are designed to protect genuine peaceful people of faith to become a tool used by extremists to provide legal cover for otherwise easily dealt with lunacy.

Likewise the application of faith in the political and educational process should always be treated with the utmost scepticism and monitored to the hilt.

I heard a Rabbi say, about the most extreme statutes of the Talmud, that what was written was done so with the best wisdom available at the time, that having learnt from history and experience, stoning people for planting the wrong crops is now plain lunacy. A wonderful message, and a statement that some could do well to heed.

So let's not hear any more from Christian extremists about how we must allow them to discriminate against gay people in employment matters, or from Muslim extremists who wish to inspire Sharia Law and oppress British citizens. They, along with any other haters who believe, that because they have made a choice about which fairy in the sky to worship, they somehow have a right to affect, rather than just comment, on other peoples lives, need taking to task.

So by all means express your dissatisfaction of gay people, black people, red people and pink people, I want you to, but be a grown up, be post-emotional, and be ready for a verbal fight, able to defend your corner and happy to sit and have a cuppa afterwards, because that is what the response should be, not stifling by political mandate.

And woe betide those who do try to interfere in others lives because of what they believe, when it goes beyond discussion and into the realms of oppression your freedom ends and you should be found guilty of just that, oppression, so do not expect any favours for your chosen ideology, none whatsoever, you survive or you do not and we should not be protecting you, not from speech.

So lets enact a law that covers attempting to oppress, then the next time someone does not like a cartoon, a book, film or speech, instead of calling for "protection by banning, censoring or killing", they might stand up and provide a cognitive and clear argument why they are right, and if they cannot, perhaps they will just simply belt up and let the rest of us get on with our lives.


Amen to that.