Insulted?

12 01 2009

This whole saga surrounding Prince Harry is, I think, so very unfair. In making a personal video, Harry, apparently, insulted one of his squad-mates by calling him a “paki”.

There are two things to be noted here:

1. It was a personal video – it was not meant to be seen publically.

2. It was directed towards a mate. There was nothing meant by the remark, in the same way that nicknames such as ‘shorty’ or ‘ginge’ mean nothing for example.

Yet over the weekend we have been subjected to various different groups throwing their hats into the ring saying how Harry was out of line and racially incorrect. They have succeeded in forcing the royal family and Harry into an apology as public outcry continues. Harry, apparently, is not allowed to laugh and joke around with his mates in the same way that any other young man can. Whilst I accept that Harry is a public figure, I think there are times that we should accept his privacy, and accept that he will say things which may not always be politically correct, in the same way that most people are not always politically correct when they are talking with friends.

Now I understand the difference between a nickname such as those given above and a nickname which makes reference to race or ethnicity. But that is not the point, the point is that it was a joke, it was a personal, private affair; and Harry should not be chastised for it at all.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

4 responses

12 01 2009
Twining

Those suspected of the Lawrence murder were joking around in private too. It was quite horrific. Where do you draw the line?

12 01 2009
Twining

The lad’s dad thinks it was out of order. When does private drift into the public domain?

12 01 2009
Luke_D

Are you genuinely suggesting that Prince Harry having a laugh with members of his squad is comparable to the Lawrence murder? I think there is a clear difference between the two, not least because of Harry’s social position.
It has been made clear that the video Harry made was not meant to come into the public domain, so your second question is irrelevant in this case (it only drifted into the public domain due to some over-enthusiastic reporter making story out of nothing in particular).
He’s a young man having a laugh with friends, why should there be anything wrong with that? His comments were not malicious, and not meant in an offensive manner. There really is no story here.

13 01 2009
Luke_D

I bet following today’s revelations about Charles, Twining’s second comment looks a bit foolish now…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: