He referred to a recent comment of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in which she stated that she does not support 'political correctness'. He commented: "that's a direct put down to people who do believe in humanity, in decency and in legality in treating the people who fear persecution and come to our shores as asylum seekers."
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2945372.htm
The background to this was that the new Australian Prime Minister went to great pains to open the asylum seeker debate to the entire nation, stating that 'political correctness' needs to be put aside, and that people are not necessarily racist when they voice their opposing opinions on this issue.
So how can both these experienced politicians be saying they are on the side of 'decency, humanity and the right to speak freely', yet both be accusing each other of stating exactly the opposite view of 'political correctness'? Both these public figures have been elected by voters in our democratic society, and both have been seen by the public to lead decent, law-abiding lives in the service of the Australian community for many years.
I'm confused. Which definition of 'politically correct' does Senator Bob Brown support? And which definition does he claim the new Prime Minister does not support?"
If we read the 'words' only, then it seems Bob Brown is putting up his hand as the King of political correctness (which he sees as a 'good thing'), as he believes in humanity, decency and the rule of law.
However, Julia Gillard is saying that according to these very same principles of humanity and decency and the right of free speech, then 'political correctness' (which she does not see as a 'good thing') needs to be put aside.
In order to determine who is right, I decided to dig into the actual definition of this term, and in the process I found an interesting history about the changing tone of our language.
Some of the many definitions found were:
• A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.
www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html
• Suppressing the expression of certain attitudes and the use of certain terms in the belief that they are too offensive or controversial.
www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm
• Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
• Being or perceived as being over concerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
(The last two from answers.com)
Wikipedia tells us that as early as the 18th century, it simply meant 'in line with prevailing political thought or policy'. It was first used in the sense of 'progressive policy' during the feminist movement of the 1970s, and in a novel by Toni Cade Bambara it meant the very opposite of a 'male chauvinist'.
The phrase was catchy, and was soon over-used, so that by the 1980s had become a means of satire and self-effacing criticism by those of a socialist leaning, who used it to refer to a type of convoluted language that was used to avoid offending any minority group within our society.
Ironically and amusingly, this derogatory use of the term was revived in the 1990s by those on the opposite side of politics – those with a more conservative social viewpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
But then, according to the website answers.com, this 'right-leaning' attitude may have had another history, because 'politically correct' had also been used by the old-guard communists to refer to 'toeing the party line'.
In its heyday, 'politically correct language' was indeed a move forwards in Western societies to ensure that legislation and policies of institutions and corporations deleted derogatory phrases that indeed offended minorities, and changed to 'plain English' open, transparent communication while rooting out fossilised discriminatory practices.
Many readers will remember that this was a breath of fresh air and enlightenment from as recently as the 1960s when I was a teenager, when (for example) women employed in the Public Service - including teachers and scientific researchers - had to resign their permanent position and become 'temps' when they got married.
It seems then, that both Senator Brown and Prime Minister Gillard are using the phrase 'politically correct' in totally different and opposite contexts Рone as a legitimate push towards decency and non-discrimination that began in the 1970s, and the other from a later time in the 80s and 90s when the term had become one of self-effacing humour. Each is using a clich̩ to attempt to simplify their totally different viewpoints.
To overcome confusion about 'political speak' of all types, there are plenty of ways of finding information – from the instant answers available on internet search engines to the opinions expressed by reporters in newspapers – and that we should not rely on only one source or opinion. We no longer need to rely on hearing one speech from one golden-mouthed politician we may find, during our lunch hour, standing on the soap box in Hyde Park.
Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Let us use our ability to 'double-check' what our politicians mean, and use our knowledge vigilantly.