The Brits fired this guy: PC madness

his comments were taken out of context of course

he blasted the rise of China, saying: “They’re creating robots out of their own people. Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.”

uh, he was talking about Chinese increased pressure on people to conform, which is getting worse, not better, in recent years.

and then there is this: Criticizing Soros is anti Semitic.

He also repeated an anti-Semitic trope by accusing Jewish billionaire George Soros of running a “Soros empire” in Hungary.

Uh,  Soros broke the Bank of England awhile back and almost bankrupted some countries in Asia, not to mention he worked for the Nazis as a kid, so why is criticizing him considered "anti Semitic"?

but his main sin was denying "Islamophobia" is a problem. 

well, Islamophobia is a problem (England is full of prejudice, not just against Islam and "Asians" but against those from the lower classes, and against Christians, Africans, the Irish, and the Jews) but too often this word is used to silence anyone trying to criticize the aggressive radicals who recruit terrorists or criminals who terrorize the innocent, especially women, in their own communities. 

It was fear of being called "Islamophobic" stops police from enforcing laws against abuse of women if the perpetrator is of a protected class, the worst case being the Rotherham gang LINK LINK2

so who is being protected, and from what?

Last time I looked, the good Muslims (and Hindus, and Pinoys, and Polish, and Irish and West Indians) tend to love beauty in the environment rather than the ugly but politically correct death towers they are forced to live in by mindless mindless city planners.

Yet one suspects that Scuton's main "sin" is defending Western Civilization. Or maybe I should say "All traditional Civilizations", since his insistence on beauty being important is not just limited to pre modern Europe but is part of Asian, South Asian, and other great cultures.

the ultimate result of removing a voice that insists that beauty is important in housing will not make things better, because this will mean the proponents of "modern" design will have a monopoly in civil planning... 


======= and here is Sister Wendy discussing Islamic art:


-------------------
update:

Roger Scruton's defense of the accusations at the Spectator:

I recently gave an interview to the New Statesman, on the assumption that, as the magazine’s former wine critic I would be treated with respect, and that the journalist, George Eaton, was sincere in wanting to talk to me about my intellectual life. Not for the first time I am forced to acknowledge what a mistake it is to address young leftists as though they were responsible human beings. Here is my brief response to an unscrupulous collection of out of context remarks, some of them merely words designed to accuse me of thought-crimes, and to persuade the government that I am not fit to be chairman of the commission recently entrusted to me.

he goes into details: here he defends himself against accusations of anti Semitism:

,,,, In retrospect I could have chosen the words more carefully. But my purpose was to point out that anti-Semitism has become an issue in Hungary, and an obstacle to a shared national identity. As for the Soros Empire, I am the only person I know who has actually tried to persuade Viktor Orbán to accept its presence, and that of the Central European University in particular, in Hungary. I did not succeed, but that is another matter. I should add that I am neither a friend nor an enemy of Orbán, but know him from the days when I helped him and his colleagues to set up a free university under the communists. What Orbán did then was the first step towards the liberation of his country, and George Soros was one of those who helped him too. It is sad for Hungary that the two have fallen out, and that the old spectre of anti-Semitism has been reborn from their clash....

and what about that "islamophobia"?

Then there is Islamophobia. It seems that by questioning this word and pointing to its origin in the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda campaigns I am somehow showing myself to be guilty of the offence that it describes. I deplore the current use of this word, since it implies that there is some peculiar and irrational state of mind from which all objections to Islam proceed. I myself distinguish Islam, as a faith and a way of life, from the radicals who commit crimes in its name. I have a respect and tenderness towards the first of those, and a hatred of the second. But it is increasingly difficult, with the current abuse of language, to make this point, or to encourage Muslims to make it too.

at the end of the essay he warns:

We in Britain are entering a dangerous social condition in which the direct expression of opinions that conflict – or merely seem to conflict – with a narrow set of orthodoxies is instantly punished by a band of self-appointed vigilantes. We are being cowed into abject conformity around a dubious set of official doctrines and told to adopt a world view that we cannot examine for fear of being publicly humiliated by the censors. This world view might lead to a new and liberated social order; or it might lead to the social and spiritual destruction of our country. How shall we know, if we are too afraid to discuss it?