As I noted in my OP, CONTEXT is everything> And the trope of "political correctness run mad/amok"so beloved of right wing commentators in BOTH Britain and America misses the point. You try referring to the current Queen in print(never mind to her face!) as "Liz" or "Elizabeth" rather than "Her Majesty" and see who jumps on you for being socially gauche! I for one am content to be referred to as "Terry" by my mother or older brother(or wife were I married) "Uncle Terry" to my grown up nieces or my nine year old grand nephew, "Cousin Terry" to my Philly based cousins but would much prefer to be referred to as "Sir" or "Mr.Washington" by a waitress at Pizza Hut or the girl at the check in desk at an airport! Is it really asking too much for someone's wishes to be referred to in a respectful tone to be acceded to??? And of course some terms of address have clearly disrespectful overtones such as calling black men "boy" by whites in the segregated deep south even if they are old enough to be the other(white) person's father or grandfather!
Burglary may be(and is) a deplorable crime but I might make the point(a) that if a burglar thinks he might be killed by the houseowner, he has every incentive to go"tooled up"(ie with a gun or knife) on the grounds that "I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb (b) burglary is NOT a capital crime(punishable by death). He just wants to steal stuff NOT kill someone! Do we REALLY want to raise the stakes?
I personally in my OP took care NOT to impute racist sentiments to Mrs Trump but now that you mention it, what is so improbable about her being one?- an old joke amongst African Americans is that the first English word European immigrants(Irish, Italian, German, Polish and presumably Slovenian) was n---r
Remember she is married to a man whose racist views are indisputable( just Google "Donald Trump' s racist sentiments and views")!
Apropos of "the children" argument- some of my critical posters remind me of Reverend Lovejoy's wife in "The Simpsons" whose catch phrase was "won;t somebody think of the children?"!
I STILL think the librarian was within her rights to refuse a donation from someone who for whatever reason she did NOT feel comfortable with- that is her right ina free society!
Maybe it WAS a small minded act to refuse a donation of books from a First Lady whose husband's policies you presumably dislike but as the cliche runs- "it;s a free country" and there have been small minded and vindictive acts against Melania Trump's predecessors as FLOTUS( such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and more recently Michelle Obama presumably based on disapproval of their husbands policies). To my mind Melania needs to roll with the punches and move on. There is a basic argument of freedom here- should people be free to refuse(as well as accept) gifts given them?
As I noted in my OP, a donation is a gift and as such can always be refused or returned! I don't KNOW why this librarian refused the donation(there may or may not be some underlying political motivation) but this principle is inviolate. FYI I have been widely criticized by right wingers over at Catholic Community Forum(at one stage I was thrown off it NOT for disputing or attacking Church teaching but for referring to the US military as a collection of borderline psychopaths ). I post under my real name (Terry Washington).
We have heard a lot of BS about so-called "snowflakes" who need "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" well i submit that the biggest "snowflakes" are located on thr Republican right and in the Trump White House!!!!
Whenever a person (esp a celebrity such as Taylor Swift) claims that the reason for pursuing a lawsuit is not the money but the principle, to paraphrase an old wag's saying- it's about the money( well maybe not in Swift's case- as she is seeking damages of ONE US DOLLAR), I suspect that publicity is the real reason!
If Her Majesty's Government is unwilling or unable to investigate these( well founded to my mind) allegations of what can opnly be termed war crimes and punish the malefactors as they should be, then I see NO reason was to why the ICC should NOT get involved, rather than sweeping these allegations under the rug as I noted in my OP!
I agree that asking the ICC to prosecute these soldiers rather than resorting to formal court martial proceedings is a drastic and extreme step but given l'affaire Blackman I have NO confidence that an ordinary court martial will be sufficiently severe. If the ICC is good enough for African warlords and tyrants, then logically it should be good enough for "Our Boys"!
Anything else is the crassest form of self centered chauvinism(arguably racism to boot). "Fiat rua justitia caelum- let justice be done though the heavens fall!"
Paracelsus's comments