Orwell’s Winston Smith: Alive and Well in 2005

 by Carol Turoff  

| View comments |  Print This Post

The London News Telegraph reports the BBC has sanitized coverage of recent London terror attacks, labeling the perpetrators as "bombers" rather than terrorists. Amazingly, BBC’s guidelines state its “credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.” Value judgments? Can we no longer call carnage by its name?

George Orwell shocked the reading public when his book, "1984," hit the book stores in the summer of 1949.

The pages held the story of the fictional Winston Smith, employed by the Ministry of Truth in Oceania. Smith spends his days rewriting historical records to comply with the ruling government’s revisionist version of the past. Intrigued with learning the forbidden truth, he is ultimately placed under surveillance, captured by the Thought Police and undergoes torturous therapy in order to be cured of his rebellious ways. Newspeak, the official speech of Oceania, is remarkable in that the language diminishes each year, ultimately culminating in the destruction of words that embody dissent. Eventually, there is no deviation from the party line, since the terminology used to rally others to action against repression have been obliterated.

And so it is with political correctness today. We become unable to speak the truth lest someone take offense. And if those taking offense are radical Islamic fundamentalists who behead civilians, place bombs in the public square, commandeer commercial airliners flying them into towering office buildings or attempt to flatten the Pentagon, let us not speak the words.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, whom President Bush inexplicably has not replaced, has steadfastly refused to employ national security monitoring to identify potential murderers. When interviewed after the September 11, 2001 atrocities, Mineta discounted the fact that all of the 19 hijackers were of a certain ethnicity, religion and age, saying those facts should not be a consideration in airport passenger screening.

“That would be profiling,” Mineta incredulously stated. Brings to mind the old adage, about walking and quacking like a duck might actually indicate the proximity of a duck.

The London News Telegraph reports that the BBC has re-edited some of the coverage of the recent London terror attacks to avoid labeling the perpetrators as terrorists. The wording was sanitized to describe the attackers simply as “bombers.” Amazingly, the BBC’s guidelines state that its “credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.”

Value judgments? Can we no longer call carnage by its name?

In the Netherlands, a Dutch court heard the 27-year-old murderer of popular film maker, Theo van Gogh, admit, “I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion.” The Dutch-Moroccan national, Mohammed Bouyeri, told van Gogh’s mother, "I cannot feel for you because I believe you are an infidel," Van Gogh, who was cycling to work, was shot 15 times, stabbed and his throat was slit before nearly 50 witnesses. A message left on his body included quotations from the Koran and threats to other prominent Dutch citizens. Bouyeri told the court he would commit such acts again if set free.

It is worth remembering that the Koran includes the concept of death to the infidel. In the view of Islam, all but Muslims are infidels. This is not the doctrinal disagreement between Methodist and Pentecostal congregants over a sprinkling or immersion baptism. We are talking raw terrorism, homicide bombers and the goal of eventual obliteration of Western culture. It’s past time to stop concerning ourselves with political correctness and concentrate on survival of our freedoms.

Yet mentioning the audacious murderer’s adherence to radical Islamism is considered abhorrent. The Dutch, who pride themselves on their tolerance, must find themselves in a quandary. The rapidly growing Muslim community is gaining a strong foothold throughout Western Europe. No doubt the apprehension regarding offending the offenders has deep roots in fear. But politically correct cowering in the face of brazen butchery serves no one well.

Bouyeri said it more clearly than either the British, Dutch or Norman Mineta are willing to admit:

“I acted purely in the name of my religion. I cannot feel for you … you are an infidel.”

Carol Turoff is a lifelong Arizonan and active Republican. Her credentials include serving as a precinct committeeman, precinct captain and elected member of the Republican state committee, as well as involvement in numerous political campaigns. She worked for the offices of the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriff, as legislative liaison and public information officer. Additionally, she fulfilled those roles for the Department of Administration for the State of Arizona. Ms. Turoff recently concluded service as two-term member of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, during which time she participated in the selection of four of the five current Arizona Supreme Court Justices as well as 17 judges on both Div. I and II of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Read a recent letter to the editor on judicial selection Carol wrote here.

Email Feedback to the Editors

Culture: Media

Read more articles by Carol Turoff