A section on race relations in Owers' report [on Wakefield prison] said: "We were concerned to see a number of staff wearing a flag of St. George tie-pin.CNN goes on to report:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.I say wave the flag, sing the national anthem, march on St George's Day, and let's see who our friends are!
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
To have pride and respect for our past, and support the ancient institutions that have grown out of it in the face of a new intolerance is to stand firm for our country's freedom and future. The tail cannot wag the dog. Down with PC prats and religious bigots.
It's nearly enough to start me eating meat again - pork, that is.
3 comments:
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1093802
Odd isn't no outcry against images of dogs, which are considered FAR more unclean than pigs by a factor of 7
I don't know why it's pigs not dogs, but it's clear pigs are just the thin end of an intolerant, illiberal wedge.
they should probably know better than making personal statements within their dress code
In general you are right, and I should probably have mentioned it specifically in the blog, but the tie pins were apparently bought in support of a cancer charity, added to which Owers' objection does not seem to have been to any breach of the dress code as such.
There is certainly no way that anyone should be found guilty of offending religous sensitivities (whether by their boss, or by a court) without there having been an intent to cause offense.
Indeed there should not. However, I would not agree there should be any such offence of causing religious offence. Freedom of speech means nothing if you cannot cause offence, even deliberately. And I see no reason why religious sensibilities should be protected over and above other sensibilities.
Post a Comment