The fine line
Something that’s come to my attention a bit recently our favourite old chestnut of “It’s political correctness gone mad”
As you can see from the new category & title for this weekly post “A Northern Monkey Speaks”, I am (unashamedly) from the land of cotton mills, flat caps, and decent pints of bitter in a friendly local pub. Perhaps as a result, I have a very dry sense of humour. Maybe not Bernard Manning level - but if someone gives me an opening to direct abuse at them, I normally take it with open arms.
I also say what I think. If I don’t like something, you’ll find out about it.
After a recent class in Employment Law, I’ve been left wondering if - one of these days - that could land me into trouble. There is that fine line between ‘office banter’ and ‘harassment’. Telling someone that they can’t/shouldn’t be doing a job because they’re black/female/gay - that’s wrong, obviously. However, what about making a retort when the office homosexual appears from the kitchen clutching a bottle of fairy liquid?
There’s an even finer line between being polite and discriminatory. Offering to help a female carry some boxes. Helpful and good manners; or suggesting that she can’t do the work because she’s a woman? Most people (I would hope) think the former, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some that think the latter.
Law Girl recently made a post opening a debate asking if, as a society, we are becoming too sensitive to issues. She specifically mentioned “Hate Speech” - personally, I end up thinking about 1984 (with the ‘Two minutes hate’) - it’s very emotive, and any comments with ‘hate’ are clearly on the wrong side of the line.
However, I’m still wondering if we have become overly sensitive. People are taking offence at what I, for one, would call legitimate opinion - and not “hate speech” or anything intentionally offensive at all. See, for instance, the huge fuss over Archbishop Rowan Williams’ comments about Sharia Law. I think that people, on the whole, are becoming more aware about potentially causing offence - and treading far too carefully.
It gets to overkill - what are we ‘allowed’ to call British non-natives with a different coloured skin. Are they black? Brown? Negros? “Of ethnic origin”? Golliwogs? OK, almost certainly not the latter - but what is the “PC” term? I think it varies - perhaps someone can help?
Back in the workplace, the legislation is worded so that you may be guilty of an offence based on the effect of the action. It may be that you don’t intend to cause any ‘intimidating’ or ‘degrading’ environment - but if the other person takes offence, they can potentially bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal.
Perhaps, therefore, it’s still not worded wonderfully despite several re-attempts. It is true that the victim’s perspective is only one relevant circumstance, and therefore someone who takes offence at everything might not have much of a claim. But, it probably explains why people are overly cautious of offending ‘minorities’. And why I, perhaps, needs to engage brain before mouth more often.
~ Asp
This entry is filed under A Northern Monkey Speaks, Political Correctness. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Not sure about the Fairy liquid part… I see where you’re going with this, but if I were to crack breeding jokes about heterosexuals with families in tow, I’d quickly lose many of my heterosexual friends and upset others as well. And, importantly, I don’t want to offend anyone with jokes that are reliant upon their colour or sexuality etc for the punchlines. But context is everything - I can take jokes from close friends but not some stranger in a bar. It’s like Obama’s ’sweetie’ comment. My partner sometimes calls our female friends by that affectionate term, but that’s because they know us and we know them. It would be wholly inappropriate to use it everywhere.
I don’t tread too carefully. I just apply the same common sense I always have. For example, the kind of language used in gay circles among gay men is wholly different if used by a bunch of Nazis. The same words can be complimentary and friendly, or abusive and threatening, depending upon the speaker. So yes, there’s a minefield here.
Conventional political behaviour deals in absolutes most if not all of the time. But life is rarely absolute, which is why you end up with laws that are often too harsh or too lax, or have unintended consequences.
By the way, ‘homosexual’ itself is a term so rarely used now because it is taken as a marker of opinions held in which non-majority sexuality is seen as clinical and, therefore, by extension, a treatable condition. It’s too Petri dish for my liking, and for the liking of many gay men and lesbians, and bisexuals for that matter. Personally I’d have more issue with someone calling me a homosexual - or, worse, homo - in any social context than I would with someone trying to be funny commenting on my holding a bottle of Fairy.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there Andy - context is everything. I think I mentioned (might have been on my own blog) that I did actually make comment to Mr Fairy Liquid - but I’ve known him for years, and knew that if he wouldn’t take offence.
The difficult though can be judging context. Some people may take offence at some specific comment (because of personal circumstances) when - in your opinion - it’s nothing like as ‘bad’ as some comments that you’ve previously made.
Then there’s the whole issue of the tone of making a comment. You can’t sound sarcastic on the internet…
As regards “homosexual” now potentially causing offence - well, proves my point about terminology changing. I’d have thought that the scientific term would have been neutral - but shows what I know!!
Also depends on how uptight or not people are. I give as good as I get humour-wise but some folks are like blue touchpaper on certain subjects in any context! And homosexual, well, yeah, it’s got that history of oppression and aversion therapy and all that twisted stuff that ‘heterosexuality’ as a term doesn’t have attached to it. Maybe that’s why it’s not comfortable, scientific terminology or not; science was, after all, once used as justification for electric shocks and all kinds of medievalist ‘treatments’. But that’s just my theory. All I know is it jars somewhat, for me, and sometimes for others.