Answering the question posed by a radio presenter, it is a
fairly simple question to answer. It is drawing a line which extends
(initially) beyond the legal limits of actions to outlaw the triplet of
actions, words and opinions. This means otherwise legal or valid acts become
possible to lose ones job or livelihood simply by breaking rules set by others
outside the law but are enforceable enough by common practice to get the user
into a great deal of trouble if caught doing so.
The final and frequent consequence of the social outlawing
of such actions is legislation, such as that in Canada and California which
(under the guise of “hate speech”) make it illegal to ‘misgender’ an individual
by calling a man he who wishes to be called something else or vice versa, or
criticise Islam (apparently Judaism and Christianity are exempt from
protection). Therefore while causing no actual practical harm, inciting
violence or crime, an innocent person can collect a criminal record simply by
saying something which is negative about a protected group within society,
while saying exactly the same or worse about anyone or anything else remains
part of free speech.
The three sectors break down as follows:
Words: Previously technical or innocent words, including
spastic, backward, negro, coloured person, cripple, mongoloid, fireman,
retarded or blackboard have been chosen as derogatory, usually by left wing
councils, and then made into lists which employees are not supposed to use. Anyone
in the public eye dropping one of these in is subject to sacking, such as the
Conservative politician Anne-Marie Morris, who innocently used the
old-fashioned phrase ‘nigger in the woodpile’, with absolutely no malice, and
immediately was demoted. No harm was either caused or intended but the
sacrifice had to be made to the god of cultural Marxism as an example to others
what will happen if you break their conventions. Then as previously mentioned
compliant leaders such as Justin Trudeau of Canada then make such rules into
criminal law, while others such as David Cameron in Britain tried to make new
laws against ‘Hate speech’ which were ultimately totally subjective and wide
enough to take in any and every rude word in the language.
Opinions: The liberal establishment have their own versions
of right and wrong, and while remaining political preferences or personal
choices, they have elevated their opinions to right and all others as wrong, or
as they now say, Nazi. Therefore if, without any religious view or homophobia,
simply think marriage cannot be extended beyond it’s official meaning of
between opposite sexes, or that despite heavy surgery and medication people
can’t change sex you’re a Nazi. Questioning global warming (now called ‘climate
change’ as it doesn’t always warm) is another of their top five transgressions,
and like using the wrong words certain people want to make ‘Climate Change
Denial’ a crime no different to holocaust denial or incitement to genocide. Of
course elevating opinions to the level of facts and then legislating their
enforcement is pure fascism, which is the underlying current of Cultural
Marxism. Fascism is not left or right wing, only when arbitrary rules are
enforced against citizens for the benefit of the ruling elite.
Actions: Cultural appropriation, stereotyping, and in some
places even drinking milk, are labelled racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic
and Nazi by the enforcers of PC. If you make harmless jokes against any
minority, use their accent, ‘blackface’, wear dreadlocks, make curry if you’re
not Asian, wear fancy dress costumes based on ethnic cultures, you are a Nazi.
End of. I think you get the picture.
I am not going to further analyse or offer any opinions,
this is laying out my own view of the reality and practice of what is no more
than an extreme political movement and you can judge for yourself now.