Taking a fence (title by Ed Miliband)

9th January, 2012 9:59 am

I was up late on Saturday, due to my twenty-four-hour party people lifestyle (3pm-9pm: check emails, play Tetris; 9-9.30: panic, do some work; 9.30-5am: eat Bombay mix, play more Tetris) and found myself listening to 5 Live’s discussion on David Cameron’s use of Tourette Syndrome (TS) as a simile for how annoying he finds Ed Balls.

Naturally, while explaining that TS is not all that funny, the disability rights campaigner on the radio inadvertently emitted that high-pitched political-correctness-gone-mad alarm that only Philip Davies MP can hear (it’s also set off by wheelchair ramps, breastfeeding and the BBC Asian Network): scrambling for his phone, he spluttered down the line that he couldn’t see how anyone could have found the Prime Minister’s little joke offensive. The Prime Minister’s sniggering ‘apology’ on Marr the next morning likewise stated that he hadn’t meant to ‘offend’.

There’s something wrong with the language here, and like every feminist lefty I believe the solution is to BAN THIS FILTH…the filth I’m referring to, in this case, being the word ‘offence’. Also ‘offend’, ‘offensive’ and, above all else, the phrase ‘no offence’.

Here’s what happens. Someone – it could be Ricky Gervais, it could just as easily be the Prime Minister, but for the sake of both comedy and plausibility let’s say it’s Philip Davies – says something that is nasty, harmful or just plain stupid. “Why do women ming so much more than they used to?” he might muse, or “What’s wrong with blacking up, anyway?”, or “Why do disabled people get minimum wage?” (For legal reasons I should point out that Philip Davies MP has only said two of those things.)

Now, in America Philip Davies would become a frontrunner for GOP presidential candidate, but what happens in the UK is this: Twitter will read what he has said, and we’ll all get pissed off, and then Political Scrapbook will cover it by saying that Philip Davies has, once again, said something offensive. And after repeated calls to his office, they will extract from Philip Davies a bewildered half-apology, in which he will say that he never intended any offence, and then all the tweeting Tories and worse will say it’s political correctness gone mad, and that you can’t say anything any more without someone taking offence, and the whole thing will miss the bloody point.

The problem with the whole offend-offence-offensive shizzle (or ‘paradigm’, if you prefer, but I hope you don’t) is that it’s subjective. Many things offend me – Iron Lady posters on the sides of buses, Cher Lloyd, grown women who say “holibobs” – but I’m unlikely to suggest that anyone apologise for them. (Well. Maybe Cher Lloyd. Someone needs to apologise to the nation for Cher Lloyd.)

The reason Cameron needed to apologise is not because everyone on Twitter threw their hands up in horror and fainted when they saw the word ‘Tourette’ in the Telegraph, like Mary Whitehouse seeing a nipple – I don’t believe anyone did that. It is because, as countless people, including many with TS, have pointed out: having TS sucks. It’s a distressing disability which is tricky to manage, and it can attract a lot of abuse, especially at school. The bullying of some people with TS is fed by the misconceptions that 1. Tourettes means you swear all the time, 2. people with Tourettes are annoying, and 3. Tourettes is hilarious.

Taking these things into account – along with the fact that the Government is under a growing and fully justified attack over its treatment of disabled people – a number of adjectives could describe the Prime Minister’s off-the-cuff decision to use a disability as a punchline. Inappropriate, for starters. Insensitive? Definitely. Contributory to a culture that is harmful? Is that an adjective? Probably not. But it’s still better than wussing out with ‘offensive’.

By saying that we’ve ‘taken offence’ we prompt the non-apology: “I didn’t intend to cause offence.” When Cameron/Davies/whoever said that nasty, harmful or stupid thing, you see, their intention was not for people on Twitter to throw their hands up in horror and faint like Lady Sybil encountering Lady Gaga. So that’s all right! It’s not their fault they don’t have access to the Dictionary of Offence that we get in our humourless lefty induction pack (along with the houmous and a copy of ‘Chavs’). They know the word ‘black’ is in there (because everyone knows you can’t sing ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ anymore. But why isn’t ‘white’ in there? Eh? That’s what they’d like to know), and ‘homosexuality’ is in there too, and apparently there’s a picture of a golliwog, but besides that, how are they meant to keep up?

I feel the bewilderment, I really do – I genuinely believe that David Cameron doesn’t understand why he should be held to a different standard of discourse than Little Britain, and that Philip Davies doesn’t realise society has changed since Tintin In The Congo came out. And I want to help.

I like Caitlin Moran’s suggestion that we replace all the supposedly complicated rules of ‘political correctness’ with ‘BE POLITE’, but, well, it’s just not going to work in politics, is it? Even I wouldn’t suggest David Cameron tries to be polite to Ed Balls: if he was doing the flatliney hand dance at me every week I wouldn’t be polite to him either.

What I would suggest is this: before you form words, on your Twitter client or on your tongue, think about the effect they could have. This is something politicians are meant to be good at. Forget ‘offence’ – think about the actual, practical effect of your words. And then ask yourself: as Prime Minister, do I want to risk contributing to the stigma surrounding a disability? Or: as one of the very few prominent black women in British politics, do I want to say anything that risks allowing a person with little sense of historical context to call me racist? Or: as Ed Miliband (or a member of Ed Miliband’s staff), do I want to risk Luke Bozier having something else to whinge on about?

No? Then pick a different simile; have your conversation over DM or not at all; and check your vowels. It’s so easy, even David Cameron should be able to manage it. No offence.

  • Anonymous

    ” my twenty-four-hour party people lifestyle (3pm-9pm: check emails, play Tetris; 9-9.30: panic, do some work; 9.30-5am: eat Bombay mix, play more Tetris….

    ….What I would suggest is this: before you form words, on your Twitter client or on your tongue, think about the effect they could have.”.

    Exactly. I would respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice. Why do we need any of the information  you gave us in that first quote?

    This was what I meant last week about the arrogance, or perhaps naivety, of people who think anyone else is interested in the minutae of their lives.

    • Hamish

      You don’t get irony, do you Alan?

  • Hamish

    A balanced article, wittily expressed.  Not sure the title works though.

    • Anonymous

      A play on words:

      Offence = A Fence

      • Anonymous

        I thought it was a joke about Ed’s fence sitting.

  • GuyM

    A rather good article.

    No one has the right to be offended, but equally everyone should on occasion be a bit more careful with how they phrase things.

  • Anonymous

    Gosh go back to conference and listen to Miliband tell his story about knocking on a door seeing a man who obviously  could work at something, then proving it by talking to the tax payer next door, the use of words like scroungers work shy.

    Now labour comes out and says people should have benefits only if they have paid  tax, which means many people born with HIV Aids Spina Bifida Blind deaf and unable top speak are all what worthless.

    So a young soldier goes to war at eighteen, gets blown up he should have less because he did not work long enough or hard enough. Labour really does need to take a long hard look at where it’s going, and if they are chasing the Daily Mail readers good luck.

  • M Cannon

    Presumably this applies to Ms Abbott MP as well?  Following the recent excitement about her ill-worded Twitter, she said:

    ““I apologise for any offence caused. I understand people have interpreted my comments as making generalisations about white people.”

  • Anonymous

    Grace, your humour is fabulous, also serious points made.

    I don’t agree with what you say about parameters of discourse etc;
    I do think a basic level of mutual respect is simply civilized behaviour
    and part of social interaction.

    I don’t see why politicians shouldn’t be as responsible
    as any public figures in service?

    We all know “macho” behaviour for example
    has dominated some institutions, but it’s certainly
    not just a male preserve.

    I would agree though that “offensive” can be a catch all word,
    and there are many other ways to explain or follow through consequences
    of clumsy speech/bad attitude.

    Cheers, Jo.

    • GuyM

      A lot of us have no problem with “macho” behaviour Jo.

      You are basically complaining that on occasion men are like men and that some of us won’t adopt more feminine traits. Which is pointless.

      Competitive sport, military, boys nights out etc. are not going to be filled with girly men all showing empathy and understanding….  in fact the whole concept of a night down the pub with my old friends all saying “oooo i know” as we discuss our medical issues and the problems of raising children fills me with horror.

      No one has the right to be offended, if you don’t like what someone says then my general view is tough unless it is illegal.

      • Anonymous

        That’s your view Guy, fine.

  • happy.fish

    Who is Cher Lloyd?

Latest

  • Comment Featured Sajid Javid could be the sign the electorate is looking for that the Tory party has shed its ‘nasty party’ reputation

    Sajid Javid could be the sign the electorate is looking for that the Tory party has shed its ‘nasty party’ reputation

    This article is from the new Progress pamphlet ‘Face-off’, examining the potential successors to David Cameron as Conservative leader. You can read the full pamphlet here. Few leaders inspire true fear in their opponents. Those that do, do so because they force people to think again about the party they represent. Britain’s most electorally successful politicians, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, were able to reach such heights because they confounded the electorate’s expectations: Blair believed that wealth creation was not […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tony Blair hits out at Corbyn’s “politics of parallel reality”

    Tony Blair hits out at Corbyn’s “politics of parallel reality”

    Tony Blair has made a new intervention in the Labour leadership contest with an article in today’s Observer, which the paper has splashed with on the front page: The former Labour Prime Minister confesses that he doesn’t “get” frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity, but claims that he is “trying hard” to understand it, and compares it to similar waves of support for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the US presidential race. Blair also says he appreciates that his advice against […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Unions Anti-trade union legislation could face legal challenge for contravening human rights

    Anti-trade union legislation could face legal challenge for contravening human rights

    Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is ready to raise the prospect of challenging the Tories’ proposed anti-trade union laws in the courts, claiming it might contravene human rights legislation. Cooper says she has received legal advice that points to potential breaches of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which preserves the right of freedom of association, including trade unions. The leadership contender will accuse the Conservatives of trying to use their position to cripple the opposition with […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour have been “in denial” about threat from UKIP, says Dan Jarvis

    Labour have been “in denial” about threat from UKIP, says Dan Jarvis

    Dan Jarvis has slammed Labour for being “in denial” about the threat caused by UKIP, in a new report published this weekend. ‘Reconnecting Labour’, which was commissioned by Andy Burnham in July as part of his campaign to become leader, looks specifically at how Labour wins back votes lost to the anti-EU party. Jarvis raises concerns that the EU referendum a new high-profile platform that could cause further problems for Labour. He says that Labour were too relaxed about the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    Our recent prime ministers were not elected to lead their parties following general election defeats, and there are many problems with electing leaders whilst on the rebound. One of the biggest is that everyone is still in General Election Mode, presenting manifestos rather than their qualities as a leader. Policies and ideas are not wedded to any one person – any candidate could institute a policy suggested by any other candidate. Having good ideas qualifies one for the top table, […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit