Showing posts with label hate-crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate-crime. Show all posts

Monday, 4 November 2019

Short and Sweet

Justice for shorties. I’m framing this as an “Asa” post. 

Asa member of the vertically challenged community  - actually there’s nothing communal about it, I resorted to ‘grouping’ terminology through laziness - anyway, “Asa Kylie-sized / all the best things come in small packages” and representative of short-arses everywhere, I would like to make the case for making size-ism a hate-crime. 

They say Randy Newman was making a subtle point (about prejudice) but many people took those mean lyrics at face value. 

If you’re short you are disadvantaged. Fact. Through no fault of your own. You can’t change it - well you can have an operation to get your legs lengthened (you don’t hear so much about that op these days. I wonder how it panned out? ) whereas physically down-sizing ourselves is neither an option nor an aspiration.  You could wear elevating shoes, which only makes people laugh at you even more than (absolutely) necessary.

Some people don’t reveal their lack of stature until they stand up. And the opposite. Who’d have thought Huw Edwards was a giant before they saw him towering over Mary Berry. Sitting at the newsdesk he looks distinctly average.

Being short makes people disrespect you. To assume one’s childlike height means one *is* a child shouldn’t. be. allowed.

Standing next to a tall person is humiliating for a little'un as well. For both of you, true, but more so for the shorty. Think of Hammond and Clarkson.  The differential between Hammond and giant Clarkson is literally the elephant in the studio.

Oddly, when I was at school I never acquired a shortist nickname, though I was the same size as the class  ‘titch’. The only nicknames I acquired were derivatives of my surname.  I like to think that was because my personality was tall. 

If you apply bog-standard logic to the definition of racism, eg., by reducing it to the simple matter of hard-wired (“hardware”) meaning inherent characteristic that you’re lumbered with (racial and  genetic) as opposed to ‘software’ -  add-ons - religious, cultural or ideological,  then shortism certainly qualifies as racism.

This is not fair. Take John Bercow. A large part of the vitriol aimed at Bercow includes derogatory and demeaning references to his diminutive stature. But he isn’t freakishly small. Below average, perhaps. So, was this about the impertinence of a jumped-up, not-tall-enough individual assuming he had the authority of 'we giants' ? Or merely because the haters thought that such a huge amount of pomposity had no business coming from someone under six foot? Let’s face it, some of our political bigwigs are huge. With massive feet too, I shouldn’t wonder. Boats for shoes.

Shortist remarks abound. Remember Sarkozy? I suppose the fact that Mrs Sarcozy and Mrs Bercow tower above their 'old men' adds to the humiliation, though some short man/tall wife combos seem to think it’s something to show off about.

making a virtue out of necessity

If you’re genuinely handicapped size-wise, certain types of jokes are off-limits. Only ‘laughing with you, not at you” jokes are allowed. I wonder what would happen if Warwick Davis reinvented himself as a politician? Cue jokes about standing for office. Warwick Davis for Speaker! No quips about high-chairs then, I’ll wager.

Anyway, I demand protected status. 

Sunday, 3 November 2019

New Look

Modest

I watched a discussion about “hate crime” on that sanctimonious Sunday morning programme called Sunday Live. The the botox-enhanced (re)appearance of the BBC’s one-time favourite ‘revert’  Myriam Francoise Cerrah was an unexpected pleasure. (long-time-no-see!) And the 'Cerrah" has gone.

Still modest

She hasn’t been on our screens for quite a while. She has evidently revoked modesty for a new, lip-enhanced Kardashian-look. (I stole the grab below from btl over on Harry's Place. )

Immodest
However, her regurgitation of those tiresome context-free Boris quotations almost made I larf. You guessed it; she employed the humbug/letterbox manoeuvre. This was supposed to be a discussion about stopping hate-speech, not indulging in it!

When the host politely probed her about the new look, she said she’d been forced to abandon her headscarf because of racist incidents on the bus. Somehow that seemed hard to believe. The new image somehow dented the credibility of that particular excuse. (And the headscarf had shrunk to a turban a while back.)

"At the root of it all is white supremacy", she concluded.  At least she didn't start that announcement with "I'm not being hateful, but..."

Saturday, 3 November 2018

There’s never been a fag paper between us. Updated

Diane Abbott spoke passionately, almost eloquently, on the Today Programme yesterday about the police’s somewhat confusing approach to hate speech and hate crime following Sara Thornton’s and Cressida Dick’s much-lauded announcement about the subject. ”Focus on violent crimes rather than misogyny.”   -  and, oddly “there’s never been a fag paper between us.”

When you’ve erased that image from your brain let’s consider what the much-maligned Diane was trying to explain. 

At one point she defined 'hate crime', to John Humphrys’s obvious consternation, as “being shouted at in the street!” 

“So police should divert resources - when somebody is shouted at in the street - when there might be somebody being stabbed around the corner?”  said Humph with exaggerated incredulity

“You know we live in an increasingly dangerous environment (sic) society and people feeling free to abuse people in the street and send them abusive emails and letters, that is part of that hatefulness and violence,” countered Abbott. You could see what she meant though.

But all that seemed somewhat at odds with Diane Abbott’s approach to antisemitism,  especially in the light of the story which occupied BBC News for one whole here-today-gone-tomorrow’s worth of headlines. 


Update

From a different political spectrum and to show that this blog is fair and open minded, I give you this from the New Statesman:


Of course, I could person-splain my partially-sympathetic-to-Diane-Abbott position away with the ‘even a stopped clock’ manoeuvre, but I ‘m not going to do that right now. 

Abbott is unarguably weird, inconsistent, hypocritical and, it seems, I’m afraid, ’unnecessarily’ antisemitic, but she wouldn’t have got where she is today without a particular type of verbal or mental agility/acuity.

Anyway, here, against Humph she shows resilience and tenacity; and then she (and the New Statesman) goes and spoils it all by forgetting something stupid like antisemitism in the Labour Party. (and her own cloth-eared nonsense about smearing Corbers.)