During the Cold War, anti-war messages were received enthusiastically by the cultured world and "Teapacks" would have been guaranteed an honorable spot on the stage. The fear of a nuclear war deeply penetrated people's awareness from both sides of the iron curtain and united them in their goal to prevent delusional leaders from pushing the button.
But the Cold War is over, and with it the fear of a nuclear conflict between the superpowers. Liberal and leftist public opinion in the West, particularly in Europe, is now focusing its attention on other dangers, such as environmental pollution and global warming.
The fact that a handful of insane leaders are continuing to develop nuclear arms no longer interests them: The opposition to these leaders and to their delusional plans is viewed as a politically incorrect act. It is crystal clear to liberal leftists in Europe that humanity's number one enemy is US President George Bush, and not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The latter has even benefited from a somewhat forgiving attitude in his capacity of spearheading the holy war against Bush's America.
And thus, with a moral distortion that an honest person would find hard to comprehend, in today's Europe it is not politically correct to sing songs against nuclear bombs, because they are likely to hurt the Iranian regime's feelings (and perhaps also the North Koreans,) and to spark a political dispute.
Other outrageous expressions disrupt the moral judgment prevalent in Europe and America. A bloodthirsty terrorist blows himself up every day in populated centers in Iraq, killing dozens and sometimes hundreds of innocent civilians, including a high number of women and children. No occupation resistance movement throughout history has ever set out for itself the goal of primarily killing its own people.
Nonetheless, thus far, not a single demonstration has been held in European cities to protest the murderous terror acts being perpetrated in Iraq. Because if this terror can in any way be attributed to the US, even indirectly, then it is right and just. At least in the eyes of the spoiled West.
Protesting Iranian actions inappropriate
The idea that Bush's policies in Iraq, and the genocide that is being systematically carried out there by Muslim terrorists, can also be protested doesn't occur to a British intellectual who fervently reads "The Independent." Just as it doesn't occur to him that he can protest against Ahmadinejad's nuclear bomb as well as pollution of the atmosphere.
Because one thing is certain: Had "Teapacks" proposed a song protesting global warming it would not have occurred to the organizers to disqualify the text. On the contrary, it would have been praised by all. We also have reasonable basis to assume that had Israel sent a utopian peace song depicting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a foolish conflict over the location of a falafel stand, our message would have been accepted by the commissars of European culture.
Yet a protest, even if just implied, against the insanity of Iran's leader, is not appropriate for the Eurovision Song Contest. Heaven forbid. It's not anti-American and therefore not politically correct.
This is how political correctness has turned into a new breed of political censorship: Censorship that bans protest against politicians preparing for nuclear wars.