Monday, 21 August 2017

What kind of people are supremacists?  (Part One)                                      
The very first word that comes to mind is CREEPS. However, with snide expressions aside, a White nationalist is defined as “one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocates enforced racial segregation.  A white supremacist is also described as “a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.” Now I will tell who these disgusting groups that exist in the United States.

Klu Klux Klan

The name "Ku Klux Klan" was most likely originated from the Greek word "kuklos", meaning circle. Also, "Klan" was considered another version for the word "clan", so the founders of the KKK must have merged these words together to form the name of their organization, "Ku Klux Klan". 

The KKK was founded in 1866 and was extended into almost every southern state by 1870. It became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its white members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, blacks and organized labor. The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of black schools and churches and violence against black and white activists in the South.

 A group including many former Confederate veterans had founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an Invisible Empire of the South. Leading Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan.  He presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses. What? Did they have the minds of little children?

The organization of the Ku Klux Klan coincided with the beginning of the second phase of post-Civil War Reconstruction, put into place by the more radical members of the Republican Party in Congress. After rejecting President Andrew Johnson’s relatively lenient Reconstruction policies, in place from 1865 to 1866, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act over the presidential veto. Under its provisions, the South was divided into five military districts, and each state was required to approve the 14th Amendment, which granted “equal protection” of the US Constitution to former slaves and enacted universal male suffrage.


By 1870, the Ku Klux Klan had branches in nearly every southern state. Even at its height, the Klan did not boast a well-organized structure or clear leadership. Local Klan members–often wearing masks and dressed in the organization’s signature long white robes and hoods–usually carried out their attacks at night, acting on their own but in support of the common goals of defeating Radical Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy in the South. Klan activity flourished particularly in the regions of the South where blacks were a minority or a small majority of the population, and was relatively limited in others. Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners.
Though Democratic leaders would later attribute Ku Klux Klan violence to poorer southern whites, the organization’s membership crossed class lines, from small farmers and laborers to planters, lawyers, merchants, physicians and ministers. In the regions where most Klan activity took place, local law enforcement officials either belonged to the Klan or declined to take action against it, and even those who arrested accused Klansmen found it difficult to find witnesses willing to testify against them. Other leading white citizens in the South declined to speak out against the group’s actions, giving them tacit approval. After 1870, Republican state governments in the South turned to Congress for help, resulting in the passage of three Enforcement Acts, the strongest of which was the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
For the first time, the Ku Klux Klan Act designated certain crimes committed by individuals as federal offenses, including conspiracies to deprive citizens of the right to hold office, serve on juries and enjoy the equal protection of the law. The act authorized the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest accused individuals without charge, and to send federal forces to suppress Klan violence. This expansion of federal authority–which Ulysses S. Grant promptly used in 1871 to crush Klan activity in South Carolina and other areas of the South–outraged Democrats and even alarmed many Republicans. From the early 1870s onward, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South as support for Reconstruction waned; by the end of 1876, the entire South was under Democratic control once again.
In 1915, white Protestant nativists organized a revival of the Ku Klux Klan near Atlanta, Georgia, inspired by their romantic view of the Old South as well as Thomas Dixon’s 1905 book “The Clansman” and D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film “Birth of a Nation.” This second generation of the Klan was not only anti-black but also took a stand against Roman Catholics, Jews, foreigners and organized labor. It was fueled by growing hostility to the surge in immigration that America experienced in the early 20th century along with fears of communist revolution akin to the Bolshevik triumph in Russia in 1917. The organization took as its symbol a burning cross and held rallies, parades and marches around the country. At its peak in the 1920s, Klan membership exceeded 4 million people nationwide.
The Great Depression in the 1930s depleted the Klan’s membership ranks, and the organization temporarily disbanded in 1944. The civil rights movement of the 1960s saw a surge of local Klan activity across the South, including the bombings, beatings and shootings of black and white activists. These actions, carried out in secret but apparently the work of local Klansmen, outraged the nation and helped win support for the civil rights cause. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a speech publicly condemning the Klan and announcing the arrest of four Klansmen in connection with the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama. The cases of Klan-related violence became more isolated in the decades to come, though fragmented groups became aligned with neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist organizations from the 1970s onward. In the early 1990s, the Klan was estimated to have between 6,000 and 10,000 active members, mostly in the Deep South.
 Nowadays, they aren’t seen wearing white hoods, but they carry confederate flags, swastikas flags, guns, (like decent people also) and clubs to beat people and at night when marching, torches.  In fact are they really active nowadays? The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S.
Many years ago when I was the producer and host of a TV talk show, I invited the head of the Klu Klux Klan in Canada to be my guest on my show. What he didn’t know was that the head of the Human Rights Society (who was a black man) was also going to be a guest on my show at the same time.
When the show began, only I and the black man were sitting in front of the cameras. Five minute later, the head of the Canadian head of the KKK appeared. The first thing he said when he sat on his chair that was next to my other guest was, “I didn’t think I had to sit next to a black man.” My other guest said in reply, “Shut up or I will eat you!” My black guest later made mincemeat of the other man’s views about relationships between the races.
 The United Klans of America

The United Klans of America have a website. In that website, in which they have written the following;

“The Klan is a Fraternal Order that is meant to help White Men and Women live as SEPARATIST and not SUPREMACIST lifestyle.  We walk among you everyday, interacting in our daily activities and most of the time you have no clue, (who we are) unless we want you to.” unquote  

Although the white separatist movement stereotype is that of a Southern phenomenon tied to an uneducated and disenfranchised segment of men, the movement is in reality more complex and multifaceted.   


There is no law against being a separatist since the Constitutions guarantees them freedom of speech providing their speeches don’t advocate hate statements against other races etc.



Unfortunately, the United Klans of America (UKA) have a bad reputation of violence. The increase in activism in the 1960s resulted in the UKA reaching a peak of active members and sympathetic support, with numbers estimated at 26,000 to 33,000 throughout the South in 1965. It was the largest KKK faction in the world, in a highly decentralized organization. The organization was most popular in North Carolina, where by 1966 over half of all UKA members resided. The UKA disseminated its messages through a newsletter known as The Fiery Cross, which was printed in Swartz, Louisiana. But, membership began to slip once the group was linked to criminal activity, and after Shelton served a one-year term in prison for contempt of the United States Congress in 1969. In the early 1970s, UKA membership dropped from tens of thousands to somewhere between 3500 and 4000. Alas, some of its members continued to enact violence. By the 1980s, membership dropped to around 900.
 

In the 1990s the UKA experienced a resurgence of activity of members who returned to teachings of the Imperial Wizard, Col. William Joseph Simmons, who had founded and led the second Ku Klux Klan from 1915 to 1939. Simmons taught a kind of fraternal organization that is practiced by the UKA in the 21st century. It has several Klaverns active in twenty nine states, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. UKA membership is not known precisely. The leadership is believed to be weak and the activity of the UKA is limited to ceremonial practices with no clear political agenda.

During the Civil Rights Movement in the Southern United States, members of the United States Klan and the KKK joined forces in 1960 to resist and suppress change. In July 1961, Robert Shelton, the son of a member of the KKK, settled in Alabama after his discharge from the Air Force. He rose to become the dominant figure, or the Imperial Wizard, of the UKA after his "Alabama Knights" group merged with "Invisible Empire, United Klans, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of America, Inc.", Georgia Knights, and Carolina Units, forming the United Klans of America (UKA).

The increase in activism in the 1960s resulted in the UKA reaching a peak of active members and sympathetic support, with numbers estimated at 26,000 to 33,000 throughout the South in 1965. It was the largest KKK faction in the world, in a highly decentralized organization.[7] The organization was most popular in North Carolina, where by 1966 over half of all UKA members resided.[8] The UKA disseminated its messages through a newsletter known as The Fiery Cross, which was printed in Swartz, Louisiana. But, membership began to slip once the group was linked to criminal activity, and after Shelton served a one-year term in prison for contempt of the United States Congress in 1969. In the early 1970s, UKA membership dropped from tens of thousands to somewhere between 3500 and 4000.[3] Some members continued to enact violence. By the 1980s, membership dropped to around 900.

In the 1990s the UKA experienced a resurgence of activity of members who returned to teachings of the Imperial Wizard, Col. William Joseph Simmons, who had founded and led the second Ku Klux Klan from 1915 to 1939. Simmons taught a kind of fraternal organization that is practiced by the UKA in the 21st century. It has several Klaverns active in twenty nine states, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. UKA membership is not known precisely. The leadership is believed to be weak and the activity of the UKA is limited to ceremonial practices with no clear political agenda.


The 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama had a very
strong congregation and was a center of activism for many black people involved in the Civil Rights Movement in the city, including members of the SCLC who came to help with organizing. Many marchers would often depart from the church in 1963 protesting against the city's segregation of businesses and public places.

On a Sunday in September 1963, a bomb exploded in the church during services, killing four young girls: 11-year-old Denise McNair, 14-year-old Carole Robertson, 14-year-old Cynthia Wesley, and 14-year-old Addie Mae Collins. More than 20 other parishioners were injured.[  Addie Mae Collin’s sister lost an eye from injuries of the bombing.

Witnesses said they saw a white man put a box underneath the Church steps after getting out of his Chevrolet car. The police arrested Robert Chambliss, a member of the UKA, after he was identified by a witness, and charged him with murder, in addition to "…possessing a box of 122 sticks of dynamite without a permit." The trial took place in October, but Chambliss was not convicted of murder. He did receive a fine of one hundred dollars and six months in jail for possession of the dynamite. He was tried again when Bill Baxley, the state attorney general of Alabama, realized that much of the evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had against Chambliss was not used in his original trial.  The state tried Chambliss, who in 1977 was convicted of the murder of the four girls, and he was sentenced to life in prison when he was 73 years old where he eventually died. Chambliss never confessed to the bombing.

On May 16, 2000, the remaining suspects were indicted. The jury convicted UKA members Robert Chambliss, Thomas E. Blanton, Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry of planting the 19 sticks of dynamite that were used in the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. In 2001, Thomas E. Blanton, Jr., was sentenced to life in prison following his trial, in which he was charged with murder. In 2002, Bobby Frank Cherry also was tried for murder and he, too, received life in prison.

The acquittal of a black man accused of shooting a white police officer in Alabama in 1981 was the erstwhile reason given by murderers for the lynching of Michael Donald, a 19-year-old black man, on March 21, 1981. After Josephus Andersonan, a black man in Mobile, Alabama, was charged with the murder of a white police officer but acquitted at trial.

UKA member Bennie Hays blamed the jury, claiming the acquittal was due to the presence of African-American members. Hays said he would kill a black man in retaliation. On March 21, his son Henry Hays, and another younger member of the UKA, James Knowles, decided to take action and drove around to find a victim. They found Michael Donald walking along the street and made him get into their car. After kidnapping him, they drove out to a bordering county, where Hays and Knowles hanged him from a tree.


During the investigation, the police concluded that the murder had to do with drugs, but Donald’s mother, Beulah Mae Donald, knew her son was not involved with drugs, and decided to take action. She eventually talked to national activist Jesse Jackson of Chicago. Thomas Figures, Mobile's U.S. District Attorney, contacted the FBI to take on the case under federal civil rights law. Knowles quickly confessed to the lynching.[10] In 1983, James Knowles of the UKA's Klavern in Mobile, was convicted for the 1981 murder of Michael Donald. His conviction resulted in a sentence of life in prison; he was given mercy as he was 17 at the time of the killing. At trial Knowles said that he and Henry Hays killed Donald "in order to show Klan strength in Alabama".

During the civil trial, Knowles said that he was "carrying out the orders" of Bennie Jack Hays, Henry Hays's father, and a long time Shelton lieutenant. The trial ended with a guilty verdict, and Knowles, was charged with “violating Donald’s civil rights”, and received a sentence of life in prison. Hays was charged a few months later with the murder of Donald. He was found guilty, and sentenced to death. Hays was executed in June 1997. It had been more than 80 years in Alabama since a white man had been executed, for a crime against an African American.          
 

In the spring of 1979, 20 UKA members were indicted in Birmingham, Alabama for violent racial episodes in Talladega County, Alabama. Three members pleaded guilty, while 10 others were found guilty. One of the violent racial episodes included, firing into the homes of officers of the NAACP.    

During the summer of 2013, leaflets purporting to be from the UKA were found in Milford, Connecticut. The leaflets advertised a neighborhood watch, telling residents they can "sleep soundly" knowing the UKA is on patrol. These actions were condemned by town and state leadership. On June 29, 2013 leaflets bearing the same message were also left overnight in the driveways of several homes in Burien, Washington, 10 miles south of Seattle. The incident was reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Burien Police. According to a regional Anti-Defamation League official, the incarnation of the UKA responsible for the flyers was unconnected to the older, defunct organization.

I couldn’t find anything on the Internet that the UKA was present in the Charlottesville protests. Have they disappeared altogether?


Part Two of this series will be about the role of neo Nazis. 

Friday, 18 August 2017

Some cops are really rotten apples  (Part One)                                        

From the streets of Vancouver and other cities all across Canada including the bustling streets of Toronto, there is a renaissance in policing, albeit a reluctant one for some. Greater accountability, due to technological advances, has brought to the public eye the sometimes ugly head of street level enforcement. It has also revealed the dynamic and sometimes violent situations officers encounter. For better or for worse, this is both the police officer’s and the citizen’s new reality

As Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing described it; “The police are the public and the public are the police.” unquote

Let us as a society remember that a dependable and accountable police service is essential to the efficient and just functioning of our society. Unfortunately, it is the perception of lacking accountability that has led the public to question policing as an honest institution. The institution of policing must strive for perfection, and hold officers to account when they stray. But what part does the citizenry play in this integral relationship?

We as a society cannot demand that a police officer be everything to everyone. We cannot expect them to be social workers, mental health professionals, and medical experts in every scenario. There are people far more qualified than police officers to deal with those kinds of problems.

A police officer isn’t expected to be perfect at all times when confronted with varies situations just as it is impossible to expect that every citizen be perfect at all times when they too are confronted with varies uncomfortable situations.

Police officers wrestle with these same imperfections that we as citizens also have had to do on occasions. We as a citizenry must see a police officer as a human being. And as a human being they can expect empathy from the citizenry which is not the only antidote for the broken relationship. They, as an institution, must realize that officers across our municipalities, provinces and country are responsible for society’s distrust in their practices. Like all relationships, officers must meet the citizenry half way. Nowadays, police officers must recognize that bad business as usual is no longer appropriate or acceptable. They as individuals within their profession must remember the reason why they take to the streets and their offices everyday. We as citizens have to realize that when they are on our streets, they are emotional, scared, stubborn, imperfect and yet for many police officers, they are also courageous.

The difference between an officer and a citizen however, is that when an officer makes a decision, right or wrong, perfect or imperfect, often someone’s freedom is taken or in the cases of Sammy Yatim and Micheal Brown who were shot to death by police officers; a life is lost.

We don’t expect police officers to be placed on a pedestal above other citizens. In fact, I believe that if you were to ask a police officer, they would undoubtedly explain that they have no desire for being placed on such a pedestal.

What I am proposing is that we see officers as human beings rife with all the imperfections that accompany any human being. If citizens see an officer through her or his lens, then maybe the citizens will also find empathy for the complex positions that an officer can find herself or himself in.

Empathy from the citizenry is not the only antidote for the fractured relationship between them and citizens. We citizens and police officers alike realize that there are bad officers in our streets, municipalities, provinces and country who are responsible for society’s distrust for their unscrupulous practices. Like all relationships, officers must meet the citizenry half way. Police officers must recognize that disreputable conduct as usual is no longer appropriate or acceptable when certain police officers and their police forces fumble downward. They as individuals within their profession must remember the reason why they take to the streets and offices everyday.  They must fully uphold their motto to serve and protect all citizens, even those they don’t like.  Alas, many police officers don’t adhere to that motto.

We must remember that at some point, being a police officer meant making our cities, countries and world a better place for our families and neighbors. And they must fight, at all costs, the apt insight by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one yourself.”

Citizens and police officers alike must realize that we are all fallible and for that reason, all of society must begin to empathize with the successes and failures in today’s policing environment. Citizens must realize that honest and decent police officers also suffer from the antics of bad police officers.

Mathew Tanel of Toronto made some interesting remarks on this subject which I will include in this article.

Much ink has been spilled about the “few bad apples” in Toronto’s police, but Toronto police have been behaving badly, as an integral part of their culture, for some time.

“Look at their behaviour during the G20: (Summit held in Toronto) not only those officers removing their identification to legitimize their behaviour as a violent mob, attacking “civilians,” but the unconscionable (and illegal) “kettling” (encircling them and not letting them leave) law-abiding citizens at Queen and Spadina.

“Const. Forcillo repeatedly cited his training as justification for shooting Sammy Yatim, an argument eerily similar to Nazi Germany’s military “just following orders.” Now a police officer is cited for pumping 14 bullets into a stationary vehicle, and four officers charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

I believe that the police see themselves as a highly weaponized para-military organization, and in their interaction with the public, their responsibility is apprehending “bad guys.” If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

“What the public needs is a cultural shift: these highly paid professionals must see themselves as part of the community they serve, their training must become more customer-focused, nuanced and skilled. They must learn to serve, not to rule. In that model, I don’t think there is room for a foul-mouthed bully like Forcillo, but I suspect he is not as much of an exception as we would like to believe.

“And, by the way, in this revised scenario, there should be no room for the police to use hollow-point bullets, whose only feature is that they are more likely to maim and kill than regular bullets, nor for the assault weapons now on order. If we are going to pay these people more than $100,000 a year (on average), we should expect a commensurate level of professionalism.”  unquote

Brigitte Nowak of Toronto also made some interesting remarks on this subject which I will also include in this article.

It’s hard to be a cop in Toronto at the moment. A bloody handful of brutality, deceit and allegations of perjury have raised questions about the integrity of the Toronto Police Service. The blue code of silence that prevents honest officers from reporting wrongdoing in their departments prevails.

“The public has learned the only way to snag cops is to catch them on camera. They are using their cellphones almost on impulse looking for some impropriety. Toronto police are having body cams slapped on them. However will the public really want to see what cops see?

“The police were hired to help people. Some bad things have happened and suddenly they are the bad guys.” unquote

Vincent Last of Brampton also made some interesting remarks on this subject which I will include in this article.

“The all-to-frequent troubling incidents somewhat extend from some peace officers’ limited understanding of their authority and responsibilities. The Toronto Star has for years had periods of themed-reporting when unsupported-in-law police practices focused on select communities.

“I remember my disappointment when the steam ran out of the Star’s reporting on the number of “invisible” offences for which some drivers were solely charged. The whole carding issue, though not yet dead, has not yet been properly addressed by the press. Too often, news reporting fails to bring a story to proper conclusion. The commercial media claims the right to inform the public, yet passes on the responsibility to educate.

“In today’s Wheels section, (of the Star) a representative of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is quoted as saying, “In Ontario, police have the Highway Traffic Act authority to ask for driver’s licence, vehicle permit and insurance, if there are reasonable and probable grounds for a traffic stop.”

“Although the law isn’t explicitly written like that, the implication, when taking all relevant laws into account, is that police have to operate within the bounds of all laws, and it is those laws that define what is, and what is not, the lawful performance of a peace officer’s duty; which includes the requirement to have reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been committed.

“This is the foundation upon which a peace officer’s training should focus (to) know the boundaries and how to operate within them. Too many wear the uniform or otherwise carry the badge but do not understand the limitations of the authority with which they have been entrusted.” unquote

Brian Williams of Belleville also made some interesting remarks on this subject which I will include in this article.

“Police misconduct and their getting away with only a slap on the wrist doesn’t seem anomalous to me. There are daily reports of some form of police bullying. man-handling, using excessive force, escalating situations rather than calming them  and finally of police wounding and killing citizens. Whether they are “black” or “mentally ill” seems to me to be besides the basic point of unnecessary and excessive reactions by police that end up killing unarmed (or armed with scissors or a small blade) citizens.

“I have been trying to get figures for the number of deaths caused by police in a year in Canada, in Ontario, in Toronto with no success. Are these tallies being kept? Can they be accessed? As the crime rate has declined, police violence has increased. I think that the training police receive has them use their bodies and voice to intimidate citizens, even ones like me.

“It seems we have a lot of police still standing around doing nothing at every construction site, other police grabbing speeders as a money grab rather than service — and when a robbery is called in one is told they can’t do anything. Yes, change is needed. But it’s not a question of image.” unquote

Michael Farrell of Oakville said, “Toronto’s population needs to be vigilant when it comes to cops; our police have a serious, serious problem on their hands. It’s not just the big crimes they (allegedly) commit or the ones they have been convicted for; it’s the everyday dishonesty and entitlements exhibited by the rank and file that should really unnerve and enrage our citizens. Rogue cops? Nonsense. This stuff is systemic. I turn on my phone’s camera the instant I spot a cruiser, just in case. Our uniformed, non-informed and reckless police constables are capable of anything. That’s the rule, not the exception.” unquote

Martina Gail of Toronto said, “Never in our nation’s history had Canadians seen such lawlessness on the part of our once-proud TPS (Toronto Police Service) until the G20. And how was it handled? The TPS’s command, from the chief on down, downplayed the evidence and retreated to bureaucratic paralysis while the rank and file circled the wagons, claiming to not recognize any of their fellow officers.

“Meanwhile, the Police Services Board cowered and shamefully left the force to sort itself out. As we all know, the vast majority of offending front-line police and their commanding officers were never meaningfully held to account for their brutal and illegal actions. Now, five years later, there’s increasing incidents of cops going Rambo with their firearms, lying, planting evidence and assisting the cover-up of wrongful policing by fellow officers.

“Public trust of the TPS took a traumatizing blow during the G20. But obfuscation by those bodies that could have brought justice and restored public confidence has simply opened the door to further corruption and a downward spiral of public trust.” unquote


There are many other citizens who have nothing but contempt for far too many of the members of the Toronto Police Service. That is most unfortunate because the vast majority of the police officers in Toronto are decent law-biding citizens. It is the rotten apples that spoil the images of the remainder of the police officers in the barrel. 

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

Is using profanity really that necessary?
                                                 
Profanity is a socially offensive language which may also be referred to as  bad language, strong language,  offensive language, coarse language,  foul language, vulgar  language’ lewd  language, dirty words and swear words  but whatever it is referred to, it is a bad choice of words or expletives. The use of such language is referred to as swearing, cursing or cussing. Used in this sense, profanity is a subset  of a language's lexicon that is generally considered to be strongly impolite, rude or offensive. It can show a debasement of someone or something, or show intense emotion about someone or something. In its more literal sense, "profanity" refers to a lack of respect for things and persons that or who may in fact be deserving of respect as well as causing religious offense.

Strong language is by no means a recent phenomenon. Those who use profanity will say, So what if anything said is morally wrong when using some occasional use of colorful language in a conversation.”

Although the Bible doesn’t explicitly ban the use of profanity, there are scriptures that seem to discourage it. Here is a quote from the scriptures in which the Bible records instances, such as the mention of men who "eat their own dung, (feces) and drink their own piss" in the Authorized King James Version of the 1611 translation of Hebrew text of 2 Kings 18:27.

In the United States and in other countries, the citizens are no strangers to profanity. They do it in the home, in the television shows and even in the workplace, schools and playgrounds etc. Foul language has become quite commonplace. But that does not mean that all Americans and others actually like using or hearing it.

How many people use profanity? A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 74 percent of women, and 60 percent of men in the United States are upset by listening to profanity even some of the time. Everybody swears—0.3 per cent to 0.7 per cent of the time on average, according to research even if moderately and euphemistically, replacing fucking with, say, fudge or like in movies, effing. But the meaning remains clear. It’s a little lexicon game the prudish and pedantic play in their conversations with one another.  And yet, face to face swearing is still considered taboo in many places and in many circumstances, where words meet our ears as language evolves culturally.

Many people also consider the rules about profanity to be a cultural issue. Some countries are more relaxed about using cuss words in everyday conversations. Even many Christians don’t adhere to a complete ban on profanity.

I am sure that some of my prudish readers will still take me to task for my views in this article complaining that they have to keep my views away from their young children to shield their eyes from objectionable words and phrases that is in this article and others in my blog. Am I expected to write to the level of an impressionable six year-old prude? Have their parents listened to the filthy words expressed in movies while their children are watching the same program on TV and not sent their children out of the room? 

In these modern times, the swearing jargon is more commonly devolved from the scatological–a hierarchy of waste from a human or animal’s posterior as one linguist put it: from the words “crap, shit and fart” that are now ho-hum. Is there really anything wrong saying, “I have to take a shit.” or. “I have to take a pee? When I was a kid on a farm, the expression given when one had to pee was, “I am going to see a horse about some water.” That was only said to protect our ears from hearing profanity. Notwithstanding that, those first words still don’t pass the sniff-test of editors of newspapers, with respect to the bodily functions in their vocabulary. I on the other hand, don’t pull any punches in my articles. I tell it like it really is. If any of my readers don’t like my choice of words, their relief is always within inches of the mouse in order to shut down their computer so that their lives can continue to be sanitized.   

In my opinion, I believe that when someone swears, it is for the most part because they are expressing their anger about something or someone they disapprove of.
                                               
Of course when it's not necessary to use swear words, these people who use them are often considered less intelligent and less credible than those who do not use swear words. There may be a valid point there. I will give you an example.

Someone is looking at a beautiful sunset. He turns to someone standing next to him and exclaims. “That is a fucking beautiful sunset.” An intelligent person would say, “That is an exceptionally beautiful sunset.”  

You really don't win an argument by swearing. You don't prove that you are tough, smart or articulate. You don't earn respect or admiration. You don't motivate, you intimidate. Swearing doesn't get you hired, promoted, or romantically connected unless you are talking to similar a foul-mouth person.   

As conventional thinking would have it, profanity is indeed something that should be limited in your life, or at the very least, to preserve your reputation and set a good example for your children.

I remember visiting an acquaintance in his home and while I was there, his young sons were constantly swearing. He then shouted to them, “Stop your fucking swearing!”  It is no small wonder that his sons  continue to swear in public.

I will forever have an image of my mother staring me down with soap in her hand, warning me not to swear again. 

 I have however used profanity on occasion but never in front of my two daughters or in front of my five grandchildren. Hence, none of them used profanity in my presence.  That doesn`t mean that they don`t swear.

According to researchers from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K., they concluded that "social" or "annoyance" swearing can make the workplace more pleasurable and even strengthen bonds between employees. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Many years ago, there was a real mouthy woman in our office. She used profanity a great deal of the time when talking to us. It was annoying to me and others in the office. One day I told her that she is acting like a slut when she talks like that. She went to the boss and told him that I called her a slut. The boss asked me if I called her a slut. I told him that I had proof that she was a slut. He didn’t ask what proof I had. She and her husband later met with the boss and the boss told them that I had proof that she was a slut. She subsequently quit her job.

They and the boss thought I had proof that she was a woman who had many casual sex partners. That was not what I implied. The word slut also connotes someone who does not care that much about herself.  Obviously, any woman who uses foul language in the presence of men and women doesn`t really care about the image she portrays to them.  

While swearing in public has been found to promote a sense of "oneness" among employees and friends, swearing out of annoyance is an effective "relief mechanism" for stress, replacing a more "primitive physical aggression. Using the word “Oh fuck” can feel good when you’ve just slammed the car door on your hand. It is better than saying, “Oh goodness me.”

Saying a profanity lets off emotional and physiological steam. In moments of acute anger, it’s certainly preferable as a substitute to physical violence. And just as often, there’s no conscious undercurrent, no cognitive thinking it out before erupting into a blue streak of profanity anymore than you can control a sneeze. It is mostly cathartic since it is a kind of medicine which can literally make what hurts less painful by swearing a blue streak of profanity.

Of course, even social swearing has its limits. If swearing becomes excessive or verbally abusive, it becomes a form of bullying. This, far from boosting worker morale, can lead to loss of productivity, absenteeism, depression, low morale and stress to the recipient of the profanity. It’s like using the horn on your car because with a brief toot-toot warning and it is more appropriate than an infuriated blare. Did you know that it is against the law to blow your car horn for any reason in the City of Caracas?  When I was in Cairo, I rarely ever heard a car horn being blown. Unfortunately, in the United States and in Canada, when drivers blow their horns, it is as if they are witnessing Jesus Christ descending from heaven.  

Scientific studies have shown that teeing off with a spray of vulgarities has a corresponding physical effect such as pupils dilating, pores opening, heart rate increasing. Further, your blood pressure will probably spike if all those exclamatory words are kept inside you so it is necessary to let off some steam so to speak and using profanity is a safety valve for your heart. 

It can be socially acceptable to swear when you're amongst friends who also swear, but outside of such a safe environment, however, using profanity casually is likely to offend someone within earshot who doesn’t like to hear profanity. For example, would you swear in front of your priest?

As I said earlier, I have resorted to profanity on occasion. However there are three types of words I never use. They are as follows;

1. Mother fucker. I never call anyone by that name. It is highly unlikely that anyone has ever had sexual intercourse with his own mother. It is an extreme insult even though the person who uses that phase knows that the recipient of that phase has never fucked his mother. 

2. Cunt.  I have never called a woman by that name. It is also an extreme insult.

3. Asshole. I never use that word because an asshole is an important part of the human anatomy. It serves a useful purpose in our lives.

There are swear words that I do use. They are;

1.  Shit head. There are some people who are so stupid and who infuriate me because of their stupidity, I tell them that as far as I am concerned, they have shit for brains hence I refer to them as shit heads.

2.  Damned fool. Years ago when was practicing law, a witness was testifying against my client and his statements were so ridiculous I was force to object to what he had just said. I called the witness a dam fool for making those ridiculous statements. The judge yelled loudly, “I don’t permit profanity in this court Mister Batchelor.” As a recognized authority on the English language (having helped compile the Gage Canadian Dictionary in 1982, I decided to teach the judge a lesson on the English language. What I told him was as follows;  “A dam was a small coin shaped piece of metal used by either tool makers or wood workers in the Netherlands. It cost them mere pennies. Calling someone a dam fool is implying that like the dam, what they have to say is also of little value.  Hence, it is not a swear word."  

Using the word, damn is to imply that God had damned the fool. That doesn’t really make any sense at all since there is no way of knowing what God really does so it is pointless to use that particular word. 

In increasingly secular societies, blasphemous imprecations such as “goddamn” and “Jesus Christ” have lost their force and thus their no-no impact.

 I often hear people say, “Jesus Christ, that is stupid.” To use the name of Jesus Christ in vain is profane. I have no idea why people use his name like that. It is like they are addressing Jesus Christ and telling him that something is stupid. It makes no sense at all.

It is profane to tell people to fuck themselves (which is an impossibility) and for a man to tell someone else in anger to suck his cock is really insulting, which of course was the intent of the man who made that statement.  

It is not profane to tell someone to go to hell.


For those prudish readers of my blog who feel that I have offended them by including filthy words in this article, the only thing I can say to them is—“Go fuck yourself.”  To my other readers, I hope that you have found this article informative.