The PC Gestapo Strikes Again (2)

Yeah, they have been out, full force, the past while over the Mel Gibson tempest in a teapot. I cannot believe the furore that is being generated from his idiotic outburst. And I want to just yell at many people: GET A LIFE!

Mel Gibson is a celebrity. He is an actor and director. That’s it, that's all. But his stupid comments are articles in things like the New York Times. And they include crap on what he should do to “smooth” things over.

Now he had been someone in a position of power, like a senator, governor or member of parliament, then I can see the outcry being justified. You don’t want some helping craft a bill that will affect a population who says one thing and believes another. If I heard one of my MPs making the kind of slurs Mel is accused of saying, then that MP should be taken to task.

But Mel is in film making. He is an entertainer. He does affect proposed legislation or treaties with other countries. He makes films or plays characters. That is his extent of affecting the average person’s life.

Thing is, when The Passion of the Christ came out, I had some heated debates with people about the perceived anti-Semitic aspects of the film. Yes, he is an über-conservative Catholic who believes that all the positive changes of Vatican II is wrong. Yes, his father has uttered many comments questioning the Holocaust and Mel has defended his father. And yes, this would influence the material he was filming in the Passion.

But, hello, the Gospels can be considered anti-Semitic. They don't just show the Jewish officials conspiring to kill Jesus. It is also a crowd of common Jews that shout:

Crucify him! [Matt 27:22, Mark 15:13, Luke 23:21]

John 19 is vague, for it seems only the Jewish priesthood & officials who are involved. And the Gospels do show Pilate in a “good” light. So all of the discussions that arose over Gibson's portrayal of the Jews & Romans in Passion, for me, was ridiculous.

Through historical analysis & documents, Pilate was not the “nice” guy portrayed in the Gospels. But since the Gospels were written years later, some political aspects were glossed over to keep in the good graces of the Romans. And the Church was looking for scapegoats, which were the Jews. Fine, good points. But Gibson was basing his film on a Gospel, not historical documents.

This lead to some heated arguments. There were people that vilified Gibson because he didn't give a balanced view of the culpability of Romans. Well, if he was presenting a 'historical' film, then they are right. But using Matthew, Mark or Luke, you get a slanted view and should film it that way.

But back to the incident a few days ago. Mel fucked up big time. He cannot blame alcohol on his outburst. Yet we don't know what his frame of mind was at that time, what was going through his head before and at the time. Did something piss him off beforehand which came out wrong?

I am not trying to find excuses for him but we are complex people. We are all prejudiced to certain extents. And if anyone says they aren't, they are lying. Especially to themselves. And to us. We are a product of our environment, especially when growing up. The key is to recognize we have our prejudices and try to do something about it.

Yet within this politically correct morass we live in, the minute a celebrity says something that offends some group, a furore starts. Be it an anti-gay, Jewish, Muslim, etc. etc. comment, if a celebrity missteps, a group will go after them. The rhetoric starts to fly. Suggestions abound on how this celebrity can combat their prejudices. Then come the cries to boycott their stuff, demands that they don't get hired and other absurd reactions.

Thing is, these groups put too much stock in the importance of these celebrities. I can see the protest against Mel working on a project about Jews during the Holocaust because he has no anchor or connection to it, whether he is anti-Semitic or not. I would never attempt to write anything about the Jewish experience during the Holocaust or being black in our society, because I am a boring white guy that was brought up as a Catholic. I have no connection to being a Jew or a black man. So I am not going to write a story about something I have no deep connection with, not because of my prejudices, but because I don't have the experiences.

For me, this once again shows the dangers of the PC world. I have been called anti-Semitic because of comments I made against Israel. Over the past twenty years, I have had a lot to say about Israel, not always in a positive light. But in our PC culture, the minute I say something against Israel I am classified as anti-Semitic. Yet my comments are aimed at the politicians and policies of the country, not against Jews.

I have been called a self-loathing homosexual because I rail against different aspects of the gay community. Over the past week, I have seen people I work with gingerly try to express their opinions about the current OutGames here in Montreal. They want to say some critical things about it but dare not to because they might be branded homophobic. Only when I bring up that I don't agree with the OutGames and that they are useless, a waste of money and time, do they feel comfortable to bring up the same points.

The PC culture has seriously eroded the idea of free speech. Personally, I prefer people speaking their mind and out there. Then I know where they are coming from. If Mel is an anti-Semitic, so be it. Then we know where he is coming from. If someone is a homophobe, great. I can deal with that.

But the PC culture wants everyone to be of the same mind-think. So people who are anti-Semitic, homophobic or against blacks, slip into a “closet”. They watch what they say. The end result is you meet people who have a mask on and don't see the real person.

For me, that is the danger of the PC Gestapo. Excluding they are stifling free speech, they push what people are really thinking away from the spotlight. This allows racists, sexists, etc. to hide behind the safe veil of PC and potentially do dangerous things.

That is if they are positions of power. Someone like Mel isn’t. Now if he were thinking about running for governor or president, then what happened is a pertinent point to investigate.

I understand there are many people within the Jewish community that are offended by what is alleged to have happened. As I get offended when I hear homophobic comments. But I don't waste my time actively trying to tar & feather the person. I will react by not going to his films. I will not get involved with anything he may be involved in.

And now there are calls for, if Mel, really wants to reach out to the Jewish community, he should do things like speak during Yom Kippur. Or work in a Holocaust museum. This way, he can atone for what he said. And maybe, as some have said, he will be able to deal with his prejudice.

Part of me wonders if these people are really as naive as they sound. His job is to make you believe he is someone else. Can you really ever be sure that he is really sincere or is it just acting for damage control?

Is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? I don’t know. Is he homophobic, as some have suggested? I have heard a couple of homophobic comments come from him. Knowing his stance on abortion, and other religiously charged subjects, I won’t be surprised.

Do I care? Not really. If he makes a homophobic comment, then I’ll just sigh and respond that he is an ignorant fool that needs to learn more about life. Will I join protests against him, boycott his films, demand he not be hired? Nope.

Personally, I prefer knowing the real Mel Gibson, not the persona put on for the fans. I think that the booze ripped away the myriad of masks he wears and let us have a glimpse of who he really is. And unlike the PC Gestapo, I prefer to see him as human, foibles and all. After all, he is human from what I gather, not God.

The PC Gestapo Strike Again (1)

The past week, my anti-PC mode has been in full swing. I have been working on posts ranging from 9/11 to Mel Gibson. Those can wait. Today, being Sunday, I will by politically incorrect with a bit of tongue in cheek.

Over a week ago, I read an article in Reuters about a British woman who had to take down a sign on her garden gate. The sign read:

Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses

This woman, Janet Grove, owns a terrier puppy named Rabbit. But police were summoned and ordered her to take down the sign. They were forced to act after receiving a complaint.

Janet insisted the sign was a gentle joke to discourage callers at her front door. Her late husband had put the sign up more than 30 years ago when Jehovah's called at their house on Christmas Day. Yet she had to take it down. A police spokesman is quoted as saying:

We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate. Officers attended the address and the sign was voluntarily taken down.

Thing is, I can understand why the sign was put up in the first place. When I was living in Verdun, there was a time when every second Saturday or so, the door bell would ring around 8 AM and it would be Jehovah's asking if I had found God. It got to the point where one Saturday, I said fuck it. I went down to my door, stark naked and opened it.

There was a young man and his wife with their young daughter, around 5 or 6. Of course, they stared at me in abject horror. Then to really send the word, I said something to the effect "What do you want? I was just going down on my boyfriend." There was a stammered apology and they moved quickly away. And I wasn't bothered for quite a few months after that.

I can understand that it is important for Christians to witness. But coming to someone's place unannounced to push your version of religion, to me, is no different that a telemarketer calling trying to sell you something you don't need. I know, I've been a telemarketer. People do not appreciate being interrupted to hear about something they don't want or need.

I have no problem with Jehovah's who stand around the Metro (our subway system) exits, holding the Watchtower. They don't bother me or push it into my face. If I want to initiate a conversation, it is up to me.

I look at the people who are part of the church I go to occassionally. VCC is active in the Verdun community. On Aug. 26th, they are having a block party where families can get a couple of knapsacks full of supplies for their kids who are going to start school. As it was last year, it will be a big party. The religion aspect is small. Flyers about some of the various church functions like the Alpha course will be handed out. There will be a little prayer but that is it.

The same can be said for Oasis. The people going there know it is being run by VCC. But religion isn't thrust down their throat as they get their supper and little handout bags. If they want prayer or to talk about Christianity, only then is it brought up.

Yet there are some places here in Montreal where it is different. There are some soup kitchens where once the people are settled down, they have a prayer and a little sermon. Once the people are finished eating, the same thing happens with the next group that come in.

Personally, I don't appreciate being forced to hear about the evils in my life and by giving my life to Christ, life will get better. Some of these soup kitchens have a captive audience because there are not too many around Montreal. And the thing is, it doesn't work. When I was living on the street, not one of the people I knew were converted because of the prayer or sermon. The general reaction was "I don't have a choice. I need a meal, so I'll just let them babble."

Groups like VCC look things a little differently. They witness through their deeds and lives. It is the same for my friends like Brian, Jude and Bob. They are examples of what a Christian life can be. They do not annoy anyone in the morning on the weekends, or at night when people are sitting down for dinner. They try to use their lives as examples of what being a Christian can give someone.

But time to get back to the offensive sign. I have no idea who was offended by Ms. Grove's sign. I don't know if it was a Jehovah Witness or some stupid twit who is ingrained with being PC. Thing is, the sign was up for over 30 years. Whoever was offended by the sign should either get a life or a thicker skin.

But this, once again for me, shows the insipid intrusion of the PC Gestapo into people's lives. Because someone complained that they were offended and distressed by the sign, it had to go. So police were dispatched to Ms. Grove's house to have the sign removed. What happened to Janet Grove's expression of free speech?

If the sign was new, I could see the possibility of someone being offended. But the sign was up for over 30 years. Only now someone gets offended? And what is so offensive?

In the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that there will be people who will not listen. And what does he say to this?

And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them. [Mark 6:11 NIV]

That is the point of witnessing. Not everyone is going to listen. If they don't, move on. People will jeer, hurl insults and put you down. But if you believe in your cause, then you will continue on. Some will hear what you have to say.

And if you come about a sign which offends you, so what? Move on. Thing is though, our PC culture does not allow people to get thick skin. If something is offensive, it has to be removed. Taken from our sight. But what the PC Gestapo don't get is just because you remove the sign doesn't mean you've removed what was behind the sign.

The removal of Ms. Grove's sign may be salve to the person it offended but it doesn't get rid of the sentiment behind it. And the more the PC Gestapo try to stiffle what people are saying, the more things will go underground. The more things will fester and become a cancer.

That is one reason I am so anti-PC. I want to know what people are thinking and saying. The PC culture makes people couch what they say and do. So they form a mask which is not easy to pierce. It pushes what people honestly believe into a hidden place which only they and a few know. And I don't like that evolving culture.

So this is the first post on the current PC Gestapo tactics as I see it. Over the next week, I will have a few more things to say which will include Mel Gibson and 9/11. Stay tuned.

A Sport Too Far?

I suppose I should stop reading Reuters because I keep getting fodder for silly posts. Well this one once again allows me to be politically incorrect and rail against some activists.

There is a traditional event in Lyme Regis, Dorset, England called conger cuddling. This event was started in the early 1970's by Richard Fox, a retired publican. Conger cuddling is an event in which a dead conger eel is thrown at members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). This is part of the town's "Lifeboat Week". The eel is attached to a rope and thrown at nine people standing on flowerpots. There are two teams that involved in a last man standing competition.

This event attracts around 3000 people annually and is used to raise funds for the RNLI.Specifically for the local lifeboat. It has been called the

most fun a person could have with a dead fish

Well, in 2006, the idylic town of Lyme Regis and their annual event became the focus of animal rights activists. They complained to the RNLI and threatened to film the event and start a national compaign. Their main complaint was that conger cuddling is "disrepectful" to the dead fish.

Things is, animal activists in Britain have a reputation for radical action. So Rob Michael, chairman of the Lyme Lifeboat Guild, told Reuters:

The RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) were worried that it might show them up in a bad light.

In this day and age, and with health and safety, you have to be that little bit more careful. But some people are extremely upset.

The mayor of Lyme Regis, Ken Whetlor, told the Daily Telegraph, that the complaint was from a:

gutless troublemaker with nothing better to do than stop people enjoying an innocent event that helps raise money to save lives

He added:

I cannot see how using a dead conger eel landed by a local fisherman is unethical

The above picture and image I have in my mind made me think of the fish slapping dance of Monty Python and the absurd situation this is. I know we are all God's creatures but don't these activists have anything better to do?

I understand going after puppy mills and the disgusting condition in many of the slaughterhouses and farms. But this, for me, has hit a new low.

For me, I am really bothered about the idea the conger cuddling is "disrespectful". First of all, respect is given to another human being. Second, it is, for me, something that has to be earned. An eel cannot earn my respect by just swimming around or being tasty. An eel doesn't volunteer to feed more disadvantaged eels. An eel doesn't investigate viruses and bacteria to find cures of eel diseases. An eel cannot write that great novel which moves other eels.

And they cannot use the point that this is harming the eel. It is already dead before the cuddling starts. The codger eel is not being beaten to death because of the cuddling. It is brought in dead by a local fisherman.

But I can see the dilemna of the RNLI. Some of the activists can go extremes. In the end, it wasn't worth the grief so they are replacing the eel, by 2007, with a plastic eel most likely.

What pisses me off is two fold. First of all, this was a fundraising event. Yeah, it might be a little distasteful to some, but it brought in money for the local lifeboat. It ain't going to be the same with a plastic eel. Conger eels can grow up to 10 feet (3 meters) long and can be around 100 kgs. A hefty piece of meat.

But for me, it is the second point. Our world is going to hell in a handbasket. And it just isn't the mess in the Middle East or other countries. People in our local neighbourhoods need help. Be it food to feed kids or other people to helping people to fight addictions. More and more people are crumbling under the stress of their lives. They could use someone to listen to them, give them a hand. Kids need mentors to help with their studies and dreams.

If these animal activists put half the energy they use to fight their causes into helping their fellow man, we might see some changes in neighbourhoods and communities. Yeah, I've babbled this litany before but these people seem to have more compassion and respect for a dead eel than they do for the people around them.

And they cannot hide behind the banter that the homeless, etc. have their own advocates while animals don't. The more people who help in soup kitchens or are advocates in the seats of power, the more change we can affect.

But these animal rights activists are wrapped in their own rhetoric and dogma. And they are addicted to the power they yield. They are intoxicated by the change they can affect because of the politically correct society we are currently living in.

The problems of latch-key kids or the homeless cannot be solved right away. But stopping a small town in England from "disrespecting" a dead eel gets results immediately. It validates their little sense of worth. Yet it amounts to nothing in the long term. What has this action achieved? Nothing. Except their little egos are stroked.

This bring me back to the word "respect". People like Penny, who runs the Verdun soup kitchen called Oasis on a shoe string budget I respect. People who take time in groups like Big Brothers/Sisters I respect. People who are trying to make the government respond to helping people in need I respect. People who think dead eels are more important I don't.

As I said, respect is earned. Every single one of us can affect change, albeit it on a small scale. But each small change compounded with other small changes can bring about big change. For me, these animal right activists aren't helping us, let alone the planet. If you want the average person to start to respect the animals around them, maybe it is time we instill respecting each other first. If a person cannot respect their fellow human, there is no chance in hell they will respect an animal, let alone a dead eel. But to get this into action requires work. Something I believe most of these activists don't want to do.