Taking a fence (title by Ed Miliband)

January 9, 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

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y