Despite us feeling we know exactly what it means and sensing that it is all pervasive, political correctness is difficult to define, writes David Adams.
According to the on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia, it is a term used to describe "language or behaviour that is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offence". Another more concise and rather less sympathetic definition has it that political correctness means always having to say you are sorry. Which of these you deem to be the more accurate probably depends on the broad "identity group" to which you belong.
There can be no disputing that some of the legislative manifestations of PC, such as laws to protect people from insult and discrimination on the grounds of their race, colour, religion, gender or sexuality (with sincere apologies to any minority grouping that I may have inadvertently left out), are not only sensible but also necessary. However, as is so often the way with these things, we have taken what was initially sensible and necessary and stretched it to ludicrous extremes.
In Northern Ireland, the latest home-grown example of official lunacy kicks in next month, when the ban on smoking in public places comes into effect and all public buildings will be obliged to erect No Smoking signs. On the face of it, this sounds reasonable enough until you realise that the new legislation does not provide for any special concession for churches.
And I suppose there is no guarantee that it will be amended, given the recent experience of the Catholic adoption agencies in Britain and the fact that our largest political party is such a stickler for the laws of the land being enforced without fear or favour. Admittedly, this fine example of the law of unintended consequences does conjure up a riot of mental images.
Like the notion of a large red and white No Smoking order strategically placed at the back of the pulpit just above the vicar's head. It may not do much for the aesthetics in a place of worship but it would certainly hold the attention of the congregation during the sermon.
If we follow the logic, why not put No Parking and All Dogs Must Be Kept on a Leash signs inside the churches as well. After all, you see people parking their cars in the aisles and dogs playing among the pews as often as you see a member of the congregation lighting up a cigarette during a church service.
Displaying admirable restraint, a minister writing in the Church of Ireland Gazette described the idea of No Smoking signs in churches as "overkill". That's one way of putting it.
Far more serious is the decision by some local authorities and schools in Britain to ban nativity scenes from Christmas festivals - and, in a few cases, even the name itself - in case non-Christians take offence. This, despite the fact that Britain is, nominally at least, a 90 per cent Christian country. Even aside from that, leaders of the Jewish, Muslim and Hindu communities in Britain have all been at pains to point out that they are not the slightest bit offended by traditional Christmas celebrations. But then, who are they to judge?
Some PC zealot sitting in an office somewhere has decided that even if they do not realise it themselves, and whether they like it or not, non-Christian minorities are being insulted, so Christmas must be renamed and altered beyond recognition.
In their eagerness to "provide a minimum of offence" the enforcers of this sort of nonsense seem not the slightest bit concerned that a majority of people are being offended and that their actions are adding to religious and ethnic tensions.
And that, unfortunately, is the hallmark of the usually self-appointed but highly influential PC watchdogs that now rigorously police modern western society: a determination to identify and challenge "offence" at every opportunity, even if there is none, and a complete inability or unwillingness to consider the longer term implications of their decisions.
Being highly selective in their challenges is another.
In Britain recently, some instantly recognisable people were incensed because, they claimed, the British government hadn't shown enough gratitude when the Iranian government released the naval captives they had been holding.
This, they argued, had shown a complete disregard for Iranian sensitivities.
Leaving aside whatever personal view we might hold on the whole sorry episode of the captive sailors itself, it is worth putting in context what was actually being argued.
The Iranian government officially denies the Holocaust ever took place, has representatives that have caricatured Jews as monkeys, is currently developing a nuclear capability that, worryingly, sits alongside a stated desire to wipe Israel off the map and treats its tiny Jewish minority even worse than it treats gays, women and young girls.
Yet the only part of the prevailing culture in Iran that the PC brigade in Britain could get excited about was the tendency to take offence at the drop of a hat.
Political correctness is now many things. Fair or sensible it is not.