Kelly McParland is right: the National Post columnist observes that it has become the Canadian way to constantly feel offended by words. Of course, not everyone has become this neurotic, but leftists have certainly made it their calling.

As McParland writes, essentially any word or phrase could give offence to someone, whether it’s “cotton-picking minute”, “barbaric”, “tar baby”, “Indian giver” or “nigger”. True, some of them, especially the latter, are offensive, and have been recognized as such for a very long time.

The problem, though, is that some of such proscribed words are verboten only for a specific group of people, i.e., people who don’t identify with left-wing ideology, whereas those on the left are more or less free to say whatever they want.

Political correctness, which is a mental disorder, is a sign of our times. It means that we have had it too good for far too long to even find time to quibble over words. Surely, our parents or grandparents, who lived through World War II, would have had more pressing concerns than whether or not a word was offensive.

The truth of the matter is that anything can be offensive or insulting. It depends on the personal circumstances of the individual receiving specific words, and also on the mood he or she is in that day. Unfortunately, the pantywaists will always find something to complain about. But professional, or pathological, complainers shouldn’t serve as our yardstick for what is acceptable in “polite society” and what isn’t. In fact, language as such must never be regulated in any shape or form. We would all cease being independent and free individuals if we banned so much as a single word from our vocabulary.

Take the N-word. Blacks use it amongst themselves all the time, and if a white person wanted to use it, there’s no actual law to prevent him or her from doing so. If that same white person started keeping slaves, now that would be quite different, but using certain words isn’t against the law – at least, not yet. That is to say, if one group of people can use the word, then so can everybody else.

But it’s also strange how offensive language seems to work only in one direction. Blacks in Toronto, for example, can verbally assault whites by calling them “whiteys” or “honkies” to their faces, as many of them are wont to do, yet if you’re the white victim of their assault, you’re somehow not entitled to feeling offended. Nor would it be alright for you to say that they are racists, even though that’s exactly what they are.

If a commentator on CBC wants to use the term “Indian giver”, let him. It’s part of the English language and describes a very specific attitude or personality trait that would be hard to define in fewer words. It may have an ethnic origin, but no one thinks of that ethnicity anymore when using the term today.

The same is true of describing some practices among immigrants as “barbaric”, such as honour killings. Honour killings are barbaric, and we have every right to say so – even if Justin Trudeau, who grew up surrounded by mental derangement at home, thinks otherwise. It doesn’t mean that ours is a superior culture in absolute terms. No, not at all. What it does mean is that the practices thus singled out are inferior to ours, regardless of whether we’re superior, flawless or not.

What is truly offensive, however, is the amount of time that has been wasted over such language-induced outrage. Which is more important? Ensuring that blacks have equal rights and, say, aren’t passed over for jobs or housing on account of their skin colour, or making sure that anyone who uses “nigger” or, heaven forbid, “niggardly” is thrown in jail?

Remember the old saying: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It’s the sticks and stones we must worry about. Words are, to transliterate from the German language, nothing but “sound and smoke”.