The Hypocrisy of the Gordon Brown fiasco

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-bigoted-woman

Thank you. Well, immigration is a hotbutton issue here these days.

I don't really have an opinion - I can see it both ways - here and in the USA- but I will say that calling someone a bigot based on their expressed opinions is different from calling someone a 'nigger' based solely on the color of his or her skin.

"nigger" has nothing to do with this, and he did not know this woman well enough to know if she is a bigot or not. All he knew was that she did not agree with him on policy. So he disrespected her, and he threw the word "bigot" around with no justification for doing so.

The example was only to show that you can be truthful and offensive at the same time.

No, he listened to what she had to say and he formed an opinion - as opposed to looking at someone and coming up with a derogatory name for them.

I'm sorry - but those are two different things- completely and totally.

Wrong, when he called her a bigot he claimed to know her motivations for why she advocated her opinion on policy. He could not possibly know what her motivation was. He assumed the worst about her, which is offensive.

Sure, everyone can say what they want. My point was around "political correctness." If you say something bigoted, I can call you a bigot (bringing the discussion back to Gordon Brown.) If you want to claim you're not a bigot, but a victim of political correctness, then you need to be making a reasonable argument. You don't have to have data to spout an opinion, but if you want to call all immigrants socialists who are intent on coming to this country and voting themselves benefits without contributing to society, you'd better expect the bigot label unless you can back that up.

Hawkeye - we may never know what anyone else's motivation is- I could say, 'I really like living in Somerset, England, ' and you might assume it's because most of the people who live here are white like me - but you'd be WRONG - it's because I love the scenery.

Again - whenever anyone says ANYTHING - we don't know their motivation for saying it - we can only assume.

But forming an opinion based on what people say - what actually comes out of their mouths - is totally different from forming an opinon based on what they look like.

Yes, he may be wrong - but it is not at all the same calling someone a bigot based on what they express as it is calling someone a 'nigger' based on the color of someone's skin without them ever having opened their mouths.

You are confusing the issue Engineer. Free Speech has nothing to do with "reasonable" or "data" or "facts" or anything else. Free speech means that anything you say is protected (there are a couple of exceptions for slander... but a charge or "bigot" is subjective and courts have decided that this type of judgement based charge is not grounds for slander).

Under free speech, the only penalty for making unreasonable claims is that the other guy gets free speech to call you an idiot.

That being said, there are lots of people in American public view who are rewarded (not penalized) for saying unreasonable things. (Yes, Glen Beck is a prime example).

Sorry, I am not willing to accept your assertion that ideological profiling is not as bad as racial profiling. The level of disrespect to the individual is exactly the same.

Really?! So you don't appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt until you PROVE yourself a less intelligent, more criminal and animalistice lesser human being, as opposed to just being looked at and thought of as possessing any of those characteristics automatically based on the color of your skin?

I know I appreciate being trusted to walk around a store without being shadowed by the sales people - etc. etc. - because I'm white.

A person's thoughts and expressions are indicative of who they are much moreso than their outward appearance.

Opinion reached about a person based on what they say and believe (ie - ideology) is much more understandable and efficacious than opinon based on what someone might believe about a person based on what they look like.

I'm not confusing the issue, I am responding to MM's post concerning "political correctness." No where did I mention free speech except to say that everyone can say what they want. To follow your lead, Glen Beck can say what he wants and I can call him a bigot and that's not political correctness, it is just correct.

people should be free to believe what they believe no less than they should be free to walk around in what ever pool of genetics that they happen to have. I may agree with them or try to convince them that they are wrong, but they get to decide.

On a somewhat separate note, people should be free to love who they want, and only slightly differently hate who they want. Love and hate are two sides of the same coin, this idea that love is great but hate is a crime is hypocritical. If one believes that the soul should have the freedom to have what it wants then we need to take all of the ramifications of this belief so long as no one gets hurt. And before you whine, getting your feelings hurt does not warrant you getting to decide what other people say. This notion that people should not be allowed to hate or express hate is an invasion on the sovereignty of the individual. The collective only has the right to police ACTIONS taken against individual or the collective, it has no jurisdiction over beliefs.

So then you support someones right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, causing a panic?

Theres where I disagree.
The truth cannot be offensive, unless someone chooses to be offended.

And when someone chooses to be offended, thats not the problem of the person speaking the truth.

When a person is offended by truth it is time to seriously consider involving the mental health profession.

Definitions of bigot on the Web:

* a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot

Definitions of politically correct on the Web:

* not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as disability
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct

one cannot exercise free speech and be politically correct unless you're ned flanders. as this discussion shows, just about anything can offend someone. I however like the proposal that free speech should go unadulterated, much like it is now. I do not agree with this blanket shield idea though. let everyman stand for what they say. if that happens to offend a lot of people, well, maybe that person should have thought twice about saying it in public.

what the law should protect against is things said in private "accidentally" getting public notice with thanks due to the media. I think there should be a lot more restrictions on how the news is presented as well. but that's another issue.

I am rather happy with the career I have.

It seems to me that Brown may be guilty of slander by calling the woman a bigot. I don't think it is bigotry on her part to be concerned about a large influx, into her small country, of Eastern Europeans. She is probably very concerned about them taking jobs from citizens and their effect on English culture. While it is not Brown's fault that his comment went around the world, nontheless it did to the detriment of this woman.

I think there has to be intent to slander and speaking his opinion in private is hardly intent.