Disingenuous Language.
Hand wringing Liberals are the undoubted masters in the use of disingenuous language.
First we had the ubiquitous ‘joy riding’ to describe theft of a motor car, the property of someone who had paid for it and expected to be able to use it, by (generally) an unemployed youth who could see no good reason why he also shouldn’t drive a fancy car when he pleased.
Now we have ‘honour killings’, a term much employed by the BBC recently, to describe murder when committed by a person originally from foreign shores. No native English father chopping his daughter up into small pieces and putting them in a suitcase would ever be dignified by such a term as ‘honour’, whatever his reasons for disposing of his daughter.
I have deliberately avoided the use of the term Muslim, as carefully as the BBC do – for there is no evidence that this is exclusively a Muslim ‘crime’. So called honour killings are a crime born of societies where women are considered property, and life is cheap – they are not exclusively Muslim societies.
I was amused to see just how carefully the BBC avoided offending Muslim sensibilities, by conjuring up a voxpop from a gentleman, who, though one cannot judge purely by appearances, gave every indication that he might be of Pakistani origin, who solemnly informed us that ‘Kurdish and Somalian communities must take on board the message that ‘honour killings’ are unacceptable’.
Perhaps a first step would be to remove the term ‘honour killing’ and establish that all gratuitous violence, whether resulting in death or not, is unacceptable in Britain.
It matters not whether you have stabbed the man in front of you in the queue at MacDonald for his iphone/hamburger/or looking at your girlfriend; it matters not whether you have chopped your daughter into pieces because it is the ancient custom of your village or because you had been abusing her and she was now old enough to not kiss – and tell.
We too have ancient customs – we call murder ‘murder’. I see no reason for a sub division of murder or domestic violence for any sector of the community.
Whilst I am in full flow on the subject, and just to even up the debate – we have another ancient custom in this country. It is the art, as practiced by young men for generations, of getting young girls intoxicated for the purpose of having sex with them. Yet this activity too has been hijacked by the language manipulators, this time on the right.
We used to protect our young girls by ‘walking them home’, warning them that young men were ‘only after one thing’, and discouraging them from drinking alcohol – now that ‘Asian gangs’ have joined in with this ancient craft of ‘getting her pissed and getting your leg over’ – we have a new word for it – ‘Grooming’ – and are apparently to take on board the idea that it is solely practised by ‘Asian gangs’. Hmmn.
We used to have another term – ‘Pimping’ – to describe the young men of English origin who then handed the girl over to their friends and acquaintances for sexual enjoyment in return for money. To read the media, you would think that this was invented by ‘Asian gangs’. They do not deserve the credit for inventing this means of filling your wallet – it has been around for generations.
I can think of little more divisive in society than that we should be encouraged to categorise horrific crimes into ‘white’ and ‘non-white’ crimes. Yet it is the squeamish, hand wringing, equivocating, apologetic liberals on both sides of the great political divide who are doing so.
Say after me, murder is murder, it doesn’t suddenly become imbued with ‘honour’ because you come from some God forsaken village that none of us have heard of; nor does it suddenly become a ‘hate crime’ because the victim is black. Theft is theft, it doesn’t suddenly become ‘relieving your frustration with the police’ because someone of your colour was killed by a policeman.
The race industry is possibly the most divisive invention since communism. Yesterday a young man was chased down the road by a gang and stabbed to death. Was it because of the colour of his skin? We will never be told – his skin was white. Was it because the gang which chased him was ‘inherently racist’? – That will never be said – they were black. Don’t hold your breath for 20 years of navel gazing – that young man is dead and that is all that will be said.
There is an ideology purveyed by the multi-culturalists that says only white people can be racists – that being in the majority and taking action against a person of colour is the only definition of racism.
Tell that to the children of Darfur. They have yet to witness a white person hacking their parents to death.
December 8, 2011 at 21:00
- December 7, 2011 at 12:21
-
I am sure that there was some research in the 1960′s or 70′s which showed
that we needed vocabulary to be able to articulate thought and that where no
suitable word existed, one had to be coined. This is part of the use of jargon
within subgroups of society (eg medics, accountants, employees of some big
companies). does anyone know where to find this research or if I am just going
senile.
- December 6,
2011 at 13:25
-
There are NO F*****G WORDS to describe how I feel about this latest attack by the judiciary on our supposedly equal
justice system…
Are they deliberately trying to provoke race riots?
- December 7, 2011 at 00:18
-
Is the Mail reading too much into this? A couple of years ago a friend of
mine was beaten sensless in front of a young lad he was talking to by a
couple of thugs who were high on glue or drugs. He was hospitalised after
the attack, and continued to suffer headaches and nausea for months
afterwards.
The judge granted his attackers leniency on grounds of their
difficult upbringings. There was no racial element to the case.
It’s
quite possible that race/religion did not play a part in this decision and
that for a first offence a similar degree of leniency was applied.
I
think I share your view that such leniency was not warranted though.
Just
a thought.
On a philosophical note, the human need for justice is a
strong argument for the existence of a Judge to whom we all will have to
give account. In that knowledge I can be peaceful, but not complacent, about
such lapses in the legal process.
- December 7, 2011 at 05:36
-
“There was no racial element to the case.”
Even if you argue that the victim is lying in her claims that the group
shouted ‘Kill the white slag!’ as she lay on the ground, her own words
indicate that SHE believes the attack to be racially motivated:
“‘I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can’t
think of any other reason.’”
So, what happened to that much-vaunted left-wing policy that an assault
or verbal insult is racial if the VICTIM perceives it to be?
Yet again, it seems to be a one-way street…
-
December 7, 2011 at 10:18
-
I probably worded that badly. There was no racial element to the case
I was citing. There clearly WAS a racial element to the case in the
Mail.
- December 6, 2011 at 09:45
-
- December
6, 2011 at 11:07
-
This is a telling passage:
“Its report builds on research last year which claims the public
may support reforming the penalty for murder to make life
imprisonment the maximum sentence rather than mandatory.
Really, you say? Are you sure about that? Well, not yet, they aren’t. But
they have plans…
“It claims that “with appropriate education” the public could
develop “in the general direction long favoured by legal experts and the
judiciary”.“
I’d say ‘over my dead body!’, but, under the circumstances…
- December 6, 2011 at 12:52
-
Aren’t we doing that already. People who kill their abusive partners
might get a mandatory life sentence, but that doesn’t mean that they stay
in jail for life. They are released on license. For such people who are
unlikely to ever kill again the life sentence is only a technicality in
that it stays on their criminal record. True murders do stay in jail for
life.
As for types of murder. We have executions (state), mercy killings
(euthanasia), honour killings (religous), serial murderers (psychotic
individuals), genocide (psychotic states) to name a few.
- December 6, 2011 at 08:52
-
Family honour sometimes trumps human life, expert tells Shafia trial
- December 5, 2011 at 18:32
-
Don’t forget the “war on terror”, which, to me, means sate sponsored (and
approved) terror.
- December 5, 2011 at 17:34
-
Ah but you forget the most important point. Newspeak evolves rapidly at the
behest of the chattering classes. Then anybody who doesn’t keep up with the
latest evolution can be attacked, not for what they said, but how they said
it, using last months terminology, use of which is now evidence of
prejudice.
- December 5,
2011 at 15:09
-
Before holding forth on the subject of disingenuous language, its always
best to check the etymology of the words/phrases you intend to target.
‘Joy-riding’ is an Americanism which dates, originally, to the period
1905-10 and, in its original usage, meant a pleasure ride in an automobile,
especially when driven recklessly or without the owner’s permission.
In short, the term itself reflects a rather innocent view of motoring from
an era in which cars were very much a novelty and it terms that entered common
parlance long before it gained any association with unemployed youths pulling
do-nuts at 3am on a Tesco car park.
- December 5, 2011 at 14:52
-
It’s a good point, unless you are saying the recent case should be classed
as racist, which would be contradicting yourself. The only benefit of using
the term ‘honour killing’ is a statistical one, otherwise it would subsumed
under ‘domestic’ and the prevalence or otherwise might be lost.
- December 5, 2011 at 14:48
-
I agree with every word here Anna…
Where I fall out with you, is with your belief that murderers should be be
sentenced to capital punishment…
That is murder too, and “capital” is another example of newspeak..
Murderers, should be locked up and given some gruelling work to do, like
breaking rocks or something.
We will have plenty of room in our prisons, once we free all of those sad
addicted people that resort to theft, or dealing, to afford the high monetary
price of their addiction.
-
December 6, 2011 at 17:02
-
I dont agree with capital punishment any more for the reason , I think
the bbc and thier hand wringing left wing lawyers would spin a jury so much,
that there would be a real danger of guilty people being acquitted— and that
would be bad
- December 5, 2011 at 13:58
-
I hate this new-speak too.
Slightly off topic (but from the same mind-set)- there’s an advertisement
on TV with very young children spouting emotional crap about “mummy stop
smoking”. Whether the facts are right or wrong is not the point – I find it
morally reprehensible to use children in this way and have complained to the
ASA. It seems that with smoking, the Righteous will use any underhand or
despicable method to achieve their ends, just as in 1930s Germany.
- December 5,
2011 at 13:33
-
“The race industry is possibly the most divisive invention since
communism. Yesterday a young man was chased down the road by a gang and
stabbed to death. Was it because of the colour of his skin? We will never be
told – his skin was white. “
Correction – we will be specifically told that his death
wasn’t a racist attack, and by an unimpeachable source:
“She said: “We don’t know why such a terrible thing happened, but we do
know is it is not racially motivated.
“Danny was popular, with friends from all cultural backgrounds. We do not
want to see any local retribution.””
So, we don’t know why he was stabbed, but we can rule out – before any
investigation or arrests – that it had a racial motive. Because ‘some of his
best friends were black’.
Is it me, or…?
- December 5, 2011 at 13:41
-
*sighs*
Lee Jasper won’t be gearing up for action then?
-
December 5, 2011 at 14:06
-
Jah, Le Jasper is a Bomba-Claart. he accused me of being an
untrustworthy, serial fantasist and onanist…
-
December 6, 2011 at 18:11
-
A hate crime is:
“Any incident, which may or may not constitute a
criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person,
as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”
Doesn’t matter what his Mum
or the Police think, if anyone thinks it’s a hate crime, then it’s a
hate crime. But I won’t be holding my breath.
-
December 7, 2011 at 12:16
-
It doesn’t apply in West Yorkshire because when a group of
brown-skinned black-haired male youths started shouting abuse “White
slags, get your kegs off. You ‘re just here for us to fuck) at two
teenage ethnically British (ie fair-skinned with brown hair) girls the
police wanted nothing to do with it. didn’t even start investigating
until the letter of complaint had been in for over six weeks so that
there was no extant CCTV footage. So convenient.
- December 5,
2011 at 13:28
-
“We too have ancient customs – we call murder ‘murder’. I see no reason
for a sub division of murder or domestic violence for any sector of the
community.”
Amen!
And yet, this was inevitable. Control the language, control
everything…
- December 5, 2011 at 14:15
-
In view of the way in which language is constantly being mutated, the
idea that some form of Newspeak will exist in order to reduce the public’s
capacity for conceptual thought and expression is going to take some
achieving. Unless there will be – horribile dictu – a Language Police to
monitor the vocabulary of the populace..
- December 5, 2011 at 14:22
-
Don’t we already have that? They’re called ‘the police’…
{ 25 comments }