By Dorothy Thompson.
Every day, it seems, someone else falls foul of the “Thought Police” and “New Age Censors”. Their quarry is accused of either offending the diktats of political correctness, or are deemed guilty of so-called cultural appropriation, (the act of using things from another culture without permission or thought for the hurt it might cause, or so they say). They suppurate their minority views through tyrannical social media onslaughts, ridicule, bulling, and guilt on an unwitting public, inch-by-inch, day by day.
The latest example this week was a dreadful ‘sin’ committed against the all-pervasive modern creed behind ‘gender politics’. It dictates that anyone who uses language deemed ‘sexist’ must be punished or at very least re-educated into what they perceive is a gentler acceptable behavioural standard.
There is a sinister wind is blowing through corporate Australia right at this moment. The most recent example is our national carrier Qantas. Early this week it unveiled its “Words at Work” booklet. An excerpt from the Qantas booklet that outlines how staff should interact with other staff members and customers is published below. To say it is an absurd rambling diatribe, penned by wannabe authoritarians is to give it credit it does not deserve. It comes about through the intervention of the Diversity Council of Australia but more on them a little later.
It is part of a dangerous undertow the festers in our community and it must be outed.
The greatest problem is the actual inherent oppression and censorship implied. When your employer tells you that certain seemingly innocuous words have now taken on a new hideous and offensive meaning or tone, then, only someone not concerned about their future employment or the possibility of advancement would not take heed. Perhaps at this stage it would be useful to out these highly inflammatory words. On the do Gooders hit list are words like: Mum, Dad, husband, wife, mankind, darl, love, sweetie, and old mate. These are deemed to be so offensive that they will cause irreparable and permanent damage to certain sensitive souls. This language policing has created minefields of offence everywhere.
This invasive and unnecessary intrusion has one, and only one desired effect, that is to allow one group of self-appointed moral zealots to force the rest of us to think as they do, or at least speak as they do. And because the language we use influences the thoughts we have, it ends up being the same thing.
All authoritarian regimes start by exerted by policing language. Australian Historian Keith Windschuttle describes politically correct language as a “verbal curtsy, which we are forced to perform to those who claim to be our moral superiors”.
Enter the Diversity Council of Australia; you might well ask just who they are and what is their mission. Their web site reveals:
Diversity Council Australia (DCA) is the independent not-for-profit peak body leading diversity and inclusion in the workplace. We provide unique research, inspiring events and programs, curated resources and expert advice across all diversity dimensions to a community of member organisations.
The CEO of the DCA Lisa Annese claims it’s all about making all people feel happier in their work place. Her delusionary obsessive views are truly dangerous. In support of her insane position she claims to have research justifying and supporting their meddling. I for one would like to see it. More importantly I would like to see the scope of the brief that was used to instruct these focus groups she claims to have delivered these findings. You see, you can skew questions in a certain way to manipulate focus groups to find the answers you want. It’s done all the time.
This Diversity Council mob gained unwanted attention not so long ago when its chairman, (although we’re not suppose to use this term anymore), the former Chief of Army David Morrison, posted a video telling us not to use the word “guys” because it’s offensive. He did this whilst unsteadily sashaying around in stilettos with his hairy legs prominent; some might feel that this in itself was far more offensive.
There’s no reason for a bureaucracy like this Diversity Council to exist, but exist it does, and it keeps itself busy by meddling in our lives, because the devil always finds work for idle hands.
More importantly why do companies like Qantas think they have a right to tell their employees how to speak, and effectively how to think? What gives them the right to comment on social history or political events? Part of this “Words at Work” booklet demands that Qantas staff when asked, rewrite the settlement of Australia and its history to fit into a more politically correct view they wish to acknowledge. I personally wish they would just get on with the business of flying aeroplanes safely and mind their own bloody business.
This also is the case with yet another blight on the corporate landscape, the human resources departments that infest every large orginisation to torment employees and tie everyone up in red tape. These days most have changed their name to “People and Culture”, presumably because the word “human” contains the gender-provocative word “man”.
These departments are full of people who live and breathe identity politics, worshiping at the “diversity” altar. Because they have been created without real purpose, they float all over the organisational
chart, with an inordinate amount of influence over busy and ambitious top executives who know the one way to cruel a promotion is to get offside with human resources.
So we see increasingly absurd demands embedded in the corporate culture of organisations whose purposes should be simply to make money doing whatever it is they do best.
But it hasn’t cleansed the agenda of the demands of identity politics. If anything, it’s empowered identity authoritarians to divide, transform and ultimately control society.
We have empowered a tiny minority of selfish, entitled busybodies to demand that the whole of society cater to their neuroses.
In yet another example of truly absurd censorship a county council road engineers in England were criticised for using the phrase ‘cat’s eyes’ because some people may have thought cats had been butchered, and thus the council was party to animal cruelty.
Among the most dangerous New Censors are those found in universities not only politically over-sensitive students but lecturers wedded to this Left-wing ideology. For example, a woman Sydney academic urged colleagues not to use words such as ‘genius’, ‘brilliant’ or ‘flair’ for fear of alienating female students because she said they ‘carry assumptions of gender inequality’ as they’re associated with men.
Such examples show how political correctness has become an obsession in many sections of the metropolitan, liberal left. A self-appointed priesthood now ruthlessly polices language and behaviour for any signs of heresy that their diktats state are unacceptable.