Three sports judges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland have just pronounced that the South African athlete, Caster Semenya will need to take testosterone suppressants if she is to compete in women's sport. The judges noted that women's sport was discriminatory but this was "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" for the continuation of female athletics. There we have it. If separate women's activities are to continue it must be accepted that separate activities are discriminatory under Equalities Legislation.
The comment on this case in the Media Industry has largely ignored this inevitable conclusion but the judges were forced to use reason.
It is also obviously the case that separate women's toilets and changing facilities are discriminatory given that men and women are entirely equal under the law. It is only the prospect of a female backlash that has stopped a move against toilets.
The media have created a frenzy over Caster so surely they should also create a frenzy over three judges announcing publicly that the separation of women's sport is discriminatory. Why have they not done so?
This brings us to the Media coverage of Cambridge University's plan to investigate its links to slavery. It is now about two centuries since slavery was abolished in the British Empire and four and a half centuries since slavery was a risk for English people. It is obviously racist to keep thrusting this deeply historical matter into the faces of modern black people. The Media does not mention this.
The University of Cambridge was an institution from 1209 so functioned during the period of serfdom and slavery in England. If it were found that the university was involved in eighteenth century slavery then its role in pre-17th century slavery in England must also be investigated. Surely it is racist of Cambridge and the Media to consider that slavery is only bad if it involves black people. The Media are not mentioning this. If refunds of cash for historical abuses are up for grabs then I want some as well.
If historical "offences" are under investigation my family should be in for a big payout. My family undoubtedly endured years of slavery under the regimes from 1066 to 1642 and I expect a massive payout from France for the Norman Conquest. The Italians owe me a lot for the Roman invasions. I also need the cash to meet demands from Indians etc. for compensation. Strangely the Media never mention this potential web of claim and counterclaim.
What the Caster Semenya and Cambridge stories share in common is that they expose the postmodern news Media for the story telling fraud that it really is. The post-structuralist/postmodern rule number one for inventing a "narrative" is to exclude outside truths because these only divert the reader, listener or viewer from the gripping drama of the story. This problem affects the BBC in particular. The BBC is paid by us to present a truthful account of events and although their journalists squeal about being the possessors of the postmodern "true facts" they routinely suppress the context of their stories and hence the truth.
This might not seem important but suppressing the context of stories also leads to political bias. The BBC never mentions the fact that the huge UK-EU trade deficit means that production is increasingly happening in mainland Europe or that the landscape of England is rapidly disappearing as a result of population expansion, or that global warming is largely due to the sheer numbers of people on this planet etc. etc. These evident facts and other clear and obvious truths are simply suppressed even though they are the context of every other BBC domestic news story. Postmodern/postmarxist journalists are not harmless story tellers and should be purged from the BBC.
The political reason why the BBC does not cover the context to stories? They do not want to provoke a backlash against their nasty Postmarxism.
See Postmodernism - poststructuralism - postmarxism.
 |
| Caster and her wife |
It is also obviously the case that separate women's toilets and changing facilities are discriminatory given that men and women are entirely equal under the law. It is only the prospect of a female backlash that has stopped a move against toilets.
The media have created a frenzy over Caster so surely they should also create a frenzy over three judges announcing publicly that the separation of women's sport is discriminatory. Why have they not done so?
This brings us to the Media coverage of Cambridge University's plan to investigate its links to slavery. It is now about two centuries since slavery was abolished in the British Empire and four and a half centuries since slavery was a risk for English people. It is obviously racist to keep thrusting this deeply historical matter into the faces of modern black people. The Media does not mention this.
The University of Cambridge was an institution from 1209 so functioned during the period of serfdom and slavery in England. If it were found that the university was involved in eighteenth century slavery then its role in pre-17th century slavery in England must also be investigated. Surely it is racist of Cambridge and the Media to consider that slavery is only bad if it involves black people. The Media are not mentioning this. If refunds of cash for historical abuses are up for grabs then I want some as well.
If historical "offences" are under investigation my family should be in for a big payout. My family undoubtedly endured years of slavery under the regimes from 1066 to 1642 and I expect a massive payout from France for the Norman Conquest. The Italians owe me a lot for the Roman invasions. I also need the cash to meet demands from Indians etc. for compensation. Strangely the Media never mention this potential web of claim and counterclaim.
What the Caster Semenya and Cambridge stories share in common is that they expose the postmodern news Media for the story telling fraud that it really is. The post-structuralist/postmodern rule number one for inventing a "narrative" is to exclude outside truths because these only divert the reader, listener or viewer from the gripping drama of the story. This problem affects the BBC in particular. The BBC is paid by us to present a truthful account of events and although their journalists squeal about being the possessors of the postmodern "true facts" they routinely suppress the context of their stories and hence the truth.
This might not seem important but suppressing the context of stories also leads to political bias. The BBC never mentions the fact that the huge UK-EU trade deficit means that production is increasingly happening in mainland Europe or that the landscape of England is rapidly disappearing as a result of population expansion, or that global warming is largely due to the sheer numbers of people on this planet etc. etc. These evident facts and other clear and obvious truths are simply suppressed even though they are the context of every other BBC domestic news story. Postmodern/postmarxist journalists are not harmless story tellers and should be purged from the BBC.
The political reason why the BBC does not cover the context to stories? They do not want to provoke a backlash against their nasty Postmarxism.
See Postmodernism - poststructuralism - postmarxism.
Comments