GB News doesn’t bother linking the BBC article, but you can read it here.

GB News:

The BBC has come under fire for questioning if the term “ethnic minority” should be replaced with “global majority”.

In recent years, various organisations across the UK, including the Government, have dropped the acronym Bame, which stands for black, Asian, and minority ethnic, and in its place are opting to use the new phrase “global majority”.

It’s ominous, no?

It fits will into the “they will bury you” narrative that is constantly pushed to make people believe resistance is futile.

The term was coined in 2003 by Rosemary Campbell-Stephens, a British-Jamaican academic, and refers to people who are “black, Asian, brown, dual-heritage, indigenous to the global south, and or have been racialised as ‘ethnic minorities’”.

Rosemary Campbell-Stephens

Campbell-Stephens said in 2020 that the group accounts for more than 80 per cent of the world’s population.

In March 2022, the Government committed to no longer using Bame, instead opting to use specific ethnic classifications wherever possible.

…

Last year, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) announced that it had adopted the term “people of the global majority” to refer to all ethnic groups except white British and other white groups.

In an article discussing the growing buzzword, the BBC questioned if the term “ethnic minority” should be dropped entirely in favour of the new phrase.

The suggestion caused a ruckus online, with users suggesting the term creates further division.

One user said: “What an insane question. ‘Global majority’ is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non-white Brits – not with their fellow citizens – but with the birthplace of their parents and grandparents. Far-left and far-right seek the same division.”

Yeah, but the far-right wants to physically remove these people.

So I don’t think horseshoe theory applies.

Political commentator Tim Scott said: “No single ethnic or racial group has a ‘global majority’. You can only construct a majority by including some groups and excluding others. In this context ‘non-white’ might be a more honest term?”

Sam Bidwell, from the Adam Smith Institute, said: “Activists should be careful what they wish for. Creating a ‘global majority’ identity, defined in opposition to Europeans, will undoubtedly lead Europeans to define their own national identities in opposition to the ‘global majority’.”

Another said: “The supposed benefit is from giving people a confidence boost by telling them they’re in the majority. Surely “majority=good, minority=bad” is an idea we need to get away from?”

…

However, others defended the use of the term. “It’s not semantics; it’s maths”, an individual said. “White Europeans are only 9 per cent of the global population. If you want to talk about minorities; white people are it.”

“Embracing ‘global majority’ celebrates the strength and diversity of people worldwide!,” said another.

The founder of BE.Xcellence, a Welsh company aimed at lifting the voices of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic people, said: “It speaks to unity, it gives you prominence and I think it helps us feel not less than.

“[The word] ‘minority’ can make you feel that you are less than, you are the least, when in reality we are the more in terms of numbers.”

Does this apply to white people being made a minority in their own countries, something they already were globally?

No?

Why not?

This is interesting. From The Age:

Holocaust denial and racial abuse on public transport could be allowed in Australia under proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury has warned.

Removing section 18c of the act could also cause the country’s repution abroad to suffer, akin to the fallout from the 2005 riots at Cronulla, violence against Indian students in Melbourne and the nation’s treatment of asylum seekers.

In a submission responding to an exposure draft released by Attorney-General George Brandis, Mr Rattenbury argues repealing clauses that make it illegal to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on the grounds of race would set back Australia’s multicultural progress.

The changes have received wide-ranging and sustained criticism, including from some government MPs and cultural and religious groups around Australia.

Mr Rattenbury plans to seek amendments to the ACT’s own Discrimination Act to outlaw the behaviour if the Commonwealth changes go ahead.

He said the current laws placed only a minor and justifiable limitation on free speech and concerns were “hyperbolic and unwarranted”. 

“My view is that if the changes are introduced and passed, they will not result in any increase in genuine and constructive free speech in Australia,” Mr Rattenbury said in the four-page submission.

“However, they will ‘dog-whistle’ to an unattractive underbelly of racism, promoting behaviour that will erode tolerance and harmony in Australia and cause significant mental, psychological and possible physical suffering to ethnic and religious minorities.”

A proposal measuring the effect of the act to be determined by the standards of a reasonable member of the community defeats the purpose of discrimination provisions, he argued.

Holocaust denial?

Yep, I deny it because it’s a load of crap.

Mr Rattenbury argues repealing clauses that make it illegal to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on the grounds of race would set back Australia’s multicultural progress.

Did anyone ever ask us (white Australians) if we wanted “multicultural progress”? Of course not. That’s because Democracy is full of crap. It is really just a system of Jewish dictatorship disguised as a system which gives everyone a “fair go”.

He said the current laws placed only a minor and justifiable limitation on free speech and concerns were “hyperbolic and unwarranted”. 

Don’t try deceive me Mr. Rattenbury. It’s either “free speech” or it isn’t. There is no middle ground. Which is it?

“genuine and constructive free speech”

This is code for politically correct speech. As long as the Jews, minorities, and white liberals agree with it, you can say it. If not, they want you to shut up. What a joke.

“However, they will ‘dog-whistle’ to an unattractive underbelly of racism, promoting behaviour that will erode tolerance and harmony in Australia and cause significant mental, psychological and possible physical suffering to ethnic and religious minorities.”

What about the unavoidable psychological and physical suffering (I.e. rape/violent crime) the White MAJORITY will have to tolerate in order to embrace this wonderful multicultural society? Once again, no consideration for Whites. Although, this really comes as no surprise from the Jewish system’s news rags.

I don’t know how much more obvious all this stuff has to be before Whites wake up to it.