The Scottish government has declared that the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are opressive and should therefore be considered ‘hate speech’ under draconian new rules.
A government-funded ‘inclusive language guide‘ recommends that the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ be replaced with terms such as ‘parent’ or ‘guardian.’
It also recommends replacing ‘girls’ and ‘guys’ with ‘colleagues’ or ‘everyone’.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
Modernity.news reports: This will help “avoid bias, stop reinforcing existing power structures, and convey respect,” according to the guide.
It further states, “With this language guide we hope to ensure our language is contributing to – not getting in the way of – the fundamental changes we are looking to make in the world: equality, inclusion, fairness, decolonisation, and global justice.”
Other phrases on the chopping block are the likes of ‘chairman’ and ‘spokeswoman’ and ‘manpower’ because they are gendered.
The charity also decrees that the terms ‘third world’ and ‘foreign aid’ are unacceptable and that “only by talking about and reflecting on language can we hope to make it anti-oppressive.”
The document states that “paternalistic language implies an unequal power relationship marked by altruism which denies the unjust distribution of resources that defines that dynamic.”
In place of ‘foreign aid’ SIDA suggests using the term ‘global redistribution’, and in place of ‘third world’, use ‘majority world’.
SIDA also opposes the phrases ‘global warming/heating’ and ‘climate change’ because they are not alarmist enough. Instead they offer ‘climate crisis’ as an alternative, and ‘climate emergency’ as an ideal.
A spokesman for the Free Speech Union described the document as “an attempt to gloss over the fact that the real reason these red-pencil wielding zealots want to ban words like mother and father is to enforce radical progressive dogma. “
“Problematic’ is a euphemism for ‘things I would like to ban for narrow ideological reasons’,” he added.
Responding to the backlash, SIDA’s chief executive Frances Guy stated “We make no mention of banning any words and are clear that context is important.”
He added, “With specific regard to the terms mother and father, we simply encourage people to reflect as to whether a gendered term is most appropriate, or if in fact the reference is to a parent or guardian.”
John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, commented, “This organisation is proposing changes to language based on a radical ideological programme, and is using taxpayers’ cash as its support structure. The Scottish Government should withdraw funding.”
This type of nonsense keeps rearing its head among academics, government bureaucrats, NGO fanatics and even religious organisations with nothing better to do than attempt to police the language people use.
The Scottish government is already firmly in the crosshairs of free speech protectionists over the introduction of extreme new ‘hate crime’ laws:
