Hands are are thrown up in horror when people suggest Shariah law may become part of Western democracies with the influx of Muslim migrants and refugees. But I would suggest that there is another Shariah law of which we need to be even more wary. Slowly over the last decade or so Australia has descended into a state of political correctness and the problem exists for those who may not agree with aspects of that correctness. The nature of ‘political correctness’ is that if you don’t agree you must be ‘incorrect’. The consequences: you become the object of social bullying and ostracised.
One may struggle with the idea of same sex marriage, current views on gender, child rearing and a whole host of other concepts. The problem is that if you don’t agree with the pc majority you and your views are considered unworthy of social acceptance or tolerance. In other words we have entered an era of secular shariah law. Or using a Henry Ford analogy you can have any colour T model ford as long as it is black. Other views are not permitted. If one doesn’t hold the view of the majority in the area of ethics and morality one gains pariah status.
At the heart of a vibrant democracy we need to be able to discuss and debate views in which worldviews encounter each other and can be weighed up. Even in the Cold War era Australia was wise enough not to ban communism. Yet that style of openness has been eroded. Only particular voices are now considered worthy to be listened to. Ironically even media articles arguing for tolerance are intolerant of discordant voices. Most disturbing is that one’s conscience can no longer be a reason for disagreement. The secular Shariah police will ensure that.
And that is the aspect that bothers me most. I understand and accept that with changing social mores many people, indeed most people, won’t agree with me but now, increasingly, many of us are being forced to agree or at least submit to the edicts of the secular Shariah law whether we like it or not.
Travels from Ur 
Nailed it.
We agree!
Didn’t you point out in a previous blog that people had the same issue with disagreements 500 years ago? Have people really changed? I think we all have a need to belong and that sense increases when people agree with us. This can lead to us defining ourselves partly by what we are not. There is little difference between not being p.c. and being called heretical. It’s just that burning people at the stake is not as popular these days; perhaps because it may contribute to global warming……..which is PC.
You never disappoint!
So who’s pc? The vocal minority which argues that some Dutch kids tease their dark skinned fellows as Zwarte Piet, or the silent majority who want to celebrate tradition ‘cos it’s a kids event? Is pc being used as a weapon by the anti-black or anti-weapon by the trads? Surely this is an argument that uses pc language but isn’t about that, an argument borrowed from one culture (history, USA) and applied to another culture. I see the arguments as being about different things made to look the same, but irreconcileable because they are about different things. Application of pc arguments obscures, rather than clarifies, the differences or a possible mediation.
In simple terms I am complaining about the intolerance of modern tolerance.