I would have thought that the BBC was about the world's most politically correct organization (outside Canada that is) but the British homosexual organizaion "Stonewall" has a different view. They studied 8 weeks of programming on two BBC TV Channels and concluded:
"there was 32 minutes of derogatory or offensive references to gays and lesbians on the two networks between 7pm and 10pm."
If you believe that of the BBC you would believe anything. And they were indeed stretching to find something offensive. One BBC presenter was criticized "for describing a car he liked: "Now this, for me, when I was little, was like, kind of, Jordan and Cameron Diaz in a bath together.".
Jordan and Cameron Diaz are two sexy-looking women whom the presenter was obviously complimenting highly for their looks but Stonewall thought the comment was offensive to lesbians!! All I can make of it is that sexy women must be pretty incorrect to homosexuals. But surely criticizing mainstream men who think such women attractive is itself intolerant and endeavouring to enforce a minority viewpoint on the majority. A lot like the Muslim cartoon protesters.
A New Cartoon!
When "The New Straits Times" -- a Malaysian daily newspaper -- published a new cartoon mentioning Mohammed, they got into BIG hot water. You can see the cartoon here. I would put the cartoon directly on this site but there are other people than I affected by what I post here so I don't feel I have the right to involve them.
Below is part of the newspaper's grovel over what they did. They had reason to grovel, mind you. Malaysia is run by Muslims so there is no free speech there and people can and do get thrown into jail for what most Westerners would see as unjustified reasons.
"Neither did the NST deliberately publish what it deemed an inoffensive cartoon. The NST never intended to hurt any feelings. At least one religious scholar has told the NST that the cartoon was not offensive but could, if different people wished, be interpreted differently. But we stand corrected. We should have been more sensitive - human error or not. So again, we apologise. And again, we will willingly accept any action deemed fit by the Government."
Dog Pundit has some comments about the story.
10 More Motorcycle Club Affiliates Plead Guilty
The headline above is taken directly from the Sacramento Bee. The story begins:
"Ten members or associates of the Vagos motorcycle club pleaded guilty last week to crimes ranging from possessing a firearm to conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, authorities said. The 10 represent the latest Vagos convictions after a crackdown on the biker club in the Sacramento area. The California Department of Justice and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department have conducted three operations since 2004 into drugs and violence by members and their associates."
Maybe I am out of touch with American practice but in any Australian newspaper that headline would have referred to "bikie gang members", not "motorcycle club affiliates". Referring to a violent drug dealing gang the way that California newspaper did seems quite pathetic to me. I sort of hope it sounds pathetic to some Americans too. Do Americans now have to call a spade a "digging implement"? No doubt the headline was being "non-judgmental". But if we are not judgmental about a violent drug dealing gang, it seems we have no anchors at all for what constitutes good and bad behaviour.
Footnote:
Readers might remember this story, which shows that Americans in fact CANNOT safely call a spade a spade any more.
