Wog. Breeder. Bimbo. Spaz. Are these terms a) offensive b) insulting or c) discriminatory?

New laws will ensure that these two are not portrayed as lovers but merely fond acquaintances

Perhaps I’m too thick-skinned, but having been name-called on all counts over the years, I’ve just shrugged them off. Whether I felt hurt depended if it was a jestful jibe from a colleague or rudeness from a screaming stranger.

But proposed new anti-discrimination laws drafted by the federal government mean that I might soon have grounds to lodge a discrimination complaint. A Senate Committee is inquiring into the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which combines and updates five existing sets of federal aw covering race, sex, age and disability discrimination.

Firstly, the definition of discrimination has been widened to include “conduct that offends and insults”.

Secondly, all areas of public life - not just the workplace - will be covered, including sporting fields, coffee shops, clubs and pubs.

Those accused of discrimination will have to prove their innocence, once the complainant proves a prima facie case.

Both sides will have to pay their own legal costs, even if they win.

The legislation will cover 17 “protected attributes” -  not just age, sex, race and disability, but a string of other characteristics that means Australians will need to watch their language when they gossip in a public place.

Religion is one, along with political opinion - the two topics my grandmother banned at the dinner table. Another is “social origin” (whatever that means, because the legislation deliberately does not define it).

Family responsibilities, pregnancy and potential pregnancy, and marital or relationship status are all protected.  So be very cautious about blabbing your opinion about single mothers, large families, childless couples or the latest office romance bust-up. And don’t dare ask a woman if she’s “expecting”.

Then there’s medical history (best not to inquire about someone’s health) and breastfeeding (Kochy be careful!).

Gender identity and sexual orientation have been included in the federal anti-discrimination legislation for the first time.

Then there’s nationality or citizenship (wild displays of patriotism might need hosing down next Australia Day) as well as immigrant status.

That’s an awful lot for people to get offended or insulted about.

Another problem is that employers will be held liable for spats between co-workers.

A small auto-electrician in country Victoria had to pay thousands of dollars to settle a discrimination claim lodged by an apprentice. The bloke liked to boast about his sexual exploits every Monday, so his work mates nicknamed him “Romeo”. This was enough to send him off whining to the state’s anti-discrimination commission, claiming discrimination on the grounds of “lawful sexual activity”.

When I wrote a children’s book of rhymes, Fuzzy Wuzzy Wombat, a few years ago the words included a “crazy crocodile”. The publisher made me change it - because the word “crazy” might offend people with mental issues. (Thank heavens I got to grow up with Roald Dahl and Dr Seuss.)

No one should tolerate violence, bullying, displays of hatred or discrimination against people, especially on the grounds of their age, their racial background, disability or whether they possess a penis.

The problem with the wording of the draft legislation is that it sets the threshhold for discrimination too low.

It will only encourage the thin-skinned, the vexatious and the vengeful to lodge complaints that will have to be defended, perhaps even in court.

And that, in itself, is a form of bullying.

Australia is a peaceful multicultural melting pot, where women have more opportunities than in most parts of the world, where homosexuality is not only accepted but celebrated, and political debate is brutal and bruising.  Let’s not spoil it with political correctness gone crazy.

Natasha Bita is News Ltd’s National Social Editor.

Comments on this post will close at 6pm AEDT.

Most commented

79 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Vicki PS says:

      05:15am | 27/01/13

      I surprised you got away with ‘fuzzy wuzzy’, Natasha.

    • nihonin says:

      10:46am | 27/01/13

      Why Vicki PS, you do remember that ‘fuzzy wuzzy’ was only a bear.

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:58pm | 27/01/13

      I know that China often gets rightly criticised for it;s lack of freedom of speech. Although the present government and the one before it has had to make massive changes in it’s thinking since Weibo has hit the web. 

      I’m thinking that this legislation comes close to outgunning any freedom of speech laws that they may have in place and for the better part are ignored by the citizens.

      It is OK for a Chinese to call me White devil, hell my mother in law does and she and I get on fine. I call them yellow men although that is more an innuendo that they watch porn. 

      However, when it comes to a term like Fuzzy Wuzzy being extracted from our language we not only give up our right of free speech but also give up a part of our history and the remembrance of the tight bond our soldiers had with the New Guinea people.

      This legislation would do that!

      Shame Gillard Shame!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Wuzzy_Angels

    • nihonin says:

      05:42am | 27/01/13

      I feel sorry for the professionally offended, they won’t know which way to turn when it comes to litigation, who knows they may have multiple actions on the boil at the same time.  The only winners will be the ambulance chasing lawyers (uh ho did I just offend someone with those words), the unions and the habitually offended.  So Is it possible to sue the government for making it easier to be offended?  Cause I’m, offended.

    • Freeman says:

      09:26am | 27/01/13

      Ah the habitually offended. You can see them at work on this blog trying to silence people with their faux outrage. This legislation would truly empower them. Scary that.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      10:25am | 27/01/13

      These forums will no longer exist with the changes…

    • Don says:

      12:55pm | 27/01/13

      Don’t forget this gem: “Both sides will have to pay their own legal costs, even if they win.”

      There’s the rub. So these laws will benefit the aggrieved if they are backed up by an organisation with deep pockets, whether that be a corporation, union or government department. Great news for the individual or small business - you are about to be sued sued sued sued for everything under the sun. Hell, we should start a consultancy that specialises in attacking competitors in the private sector and dragging them into the dirt - literally - thus letting the remaining businesses win. No win - no fee!!!

      So the net effect of this is to increase things like union membership as individuals simply wont have the resources (ie time and money) to undertake frivolous lawsuits.

      The other side of this is don’t forget that like a lot of things, legislation can be like a bartering system. You always ask for way more than what you think you can get - so you aim high (or low) and if you only get 50% of what you want, you still have got something.

    • Freeman says:

      06:01am | 27/01/13

      So, if Tony Abbott takes offence to JG calling him a misogynist, would he have any recourse under the proposed act?

    • Mack says:

      08:14am | 27/01/13

      No of course not. He’s a white middle class male. Not a chance in hell….

    • Achmed says:

      09:22am | 27/01/13

      @Mack - Having dealt with the Equal opportunities Commissioner in WA I can add to that.
      Being white anglo-saxon male you cannot be discriminated against.  That was the response I got when I made a complaint based on gender.

    • nihonin says:

      10:48am | 27/01/13

      Achmed, isn’t that discrimination as well if it’s a part of the act governing the commission?  You should have pursued that line.

    • wakeuppls says:

      12:56pm | 27/01/13

      Mack

      Spot on.

    • Michael S says:

      02:32pm | 27/01/13

      @Freeman - That’s an easy one. She said it in Cowards’ Castle, so it’s covered by parliamentary privilege.

    • acotrel says:

      06:07am | 27/01/13

      This legislation is a reflection on the political life in Australia, that now we must regulate to achieve simple good manners.  If you take a step back and look at what the hung parliament has bought in terms of negativity, Australia should be ashamed of itself.

    • Ben says:

      07:54am | 27/01/13

      No, you should be ashamed of yourself for making feeble excuses for the actions of this despicable government.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:00am | 27/01/13

      Hey don’t blame me acotrel, I voted LNP. The people who voted Labor or Greens are fully responsible for this shit!

    • marley says:

      08:08am | 27/01/13

      There is no “must regulate” about it.  We don’t need this regulation at all. If the government chooses of its own volition to pass these changes, then it will have to face the judgment of history, not to mention the electorate, for sacrificing the basic human rights of every single Australian by stomping out free speech in order to protect people from being offended, which isn’t a human right at all.  And history’s judgement will not be a kind one.

      As a member of the ALP, acotrel, you should be doing everything in your power to bring your Party to its collective senses.  Otherwise, you’re part of the problem.

    • Nick says:

      09:18am | 27/01/13

      acotrel.. you of all people who comes on the punch day after day using foul and derogatory language are a supporter of this totalitarian new law?
      Better be careful what you wish for as it will certainly come back and bite you on the arse.

    • Freeman says:

      09:18am | 27/01/13

      “This legislation is a reflection on the political life in Australia”
      What absolute bullshit acotrel. If this law were in any way a reponse to current politics it would around judging the accuracy of one’s statements and Julia would be in court every week defending hers.

    • Mouse says:

      09:22am | 27/01/13

      marley, I am not sure that this government really gives a flying fig about people being offended and are doing this to “protect” them. I think this little action is more about them having control of the media and being able to dictate what will and won’t be reported.  They had better watch out, this can of worms could indeed be used against them. The reporters could sue the government for bullying couldn’t they? We could sue the government for being insulted and offended at the way they treat us as a populace.  I can see some very interesting times ahead if all this rubbish goes through. We probably won’t be reading about it or watching it on the local news though because that sort of reporting will be banned…..  LOL :o)

    • BrianB says:

      10:09am | 27/01/13

      “we must regulate to achieve simple good manners.”
      With the accent on “must”.

      The proposed legislation is not a reflection on political life in Australia, but on a Government so lost it drifts towards dictatorship.

    • marley says:

      11:09am | 27/01/13

      @Mouse - I’m inclined to see this as evidence, first, of the utter ineptness of Roxon, and second as yet another example of this government’s attempt to impose its own view of what ought to be socially acceptable on the rest of us.  Internet censorship, forcing ISPs to retain your data, imposing the concept of “offense” to stop robust debate, all attempts to force us into their neat worldview.  I loathe the thinking which underlies it.

    • maria says:

      01:09pm | 27/01/13

      When democracy is kaputt than shit is King or Queen.

      WHY should Australia be ashamed of itself with a system IN WHICH THE PEOPLE ELECT THEIR OWN DICTATORS and be happy with it?

      Don’t forget that under a direct democracy a la Switzerland in which only the sovereign not just a few we wouldn’t have yo deal with phony laws.

    • Mickey T says:

      01:41pm | 27/01/13

      I wonder how many of you armchair experts have actually read the proposed legislation and changes? I’m prepared to bet…none., but go ahead and whinge about it being the end of the world as we know it if it makes your unhappy souls somehow happier. Australia should change its name to ‘whingealia’.

    • marley says:

      03:00pm | 27/01/13

      @MickeyT -“I wonder how many of you armchair experts have actually read the proposed legislation and changes? I’m prepared to bet…none.,.”

      You lose your bet.

      The proposed Bill begins by listing “protected attributes”  Those range from race, religion, gender and ethnicity to pregnancy, possible pregnancy, political opinion and a range of other factors.  Basically, they’re a grab bag from existing legislation.

      Section 2 goes on to define “discrimination.”  That definition includes the following: 

      “To avoid doubt, unfavourable treatment of the other person
      includes (but is not limited to) the following:
      (a) harassing the other person;
      (b) other conduct that offends, insults or intimidates the other
      person.”

      Section 3 defines “unlawful discrimination.” It says “It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person if
      the discrimination is connected with any area of public life” and goes on to identify areas of public life, such as work, school, clubs and sports, housing and the like.  The list is not inclusive, so there will be plenty of opportunity to expand the reach of the legislation into other areas.  So, anything defined as discrimination in Section 2, which occurs in a public place defined in Section 3, is unlawful discrimination.  Including giving offence to someone with protected attributes.

      Further on, the draft Bill repeats the wording of the current Racial Discrimination Act, by defining “racial vilification”  to include any conduct if “the conduct is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.”

      In other words, we’re back to “offending people.” 

      And that makes this legislation something worth complaining about.  It is an infringement on the entire principle of free speech.  Now you may call it whingeing;  personally, I think this is defending a fundamental human right. Perhaps you don’t think that’s worth the effort, but I do. 

      For anyone interested, the Draft Bill is here:

      http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti-discriminationlaws/Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 - Exposure Draft .pdf

    • Mouse says:

      04:11pm | 27/01/13

      MickeyT…...... what marley said :op   *runs and hides behind marley*  :o)

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      06:18am | 27/01/13

      Hi Natasha,

      So what was truly wrong with the original Anti Discrimination Act, 1987, anyway?  I am also curious if these new proposals to change things for the better is really a good idea. I am also wondering if this proposed Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Bill is only being used by the Federal Government as if they are doing the right thing to protect their own rights in Parliament House,  the members of the ordinary public or lastly to limit the media and news networks in what they dish out on a daily basis to the members of the public? 

      As a qualified interpreter I have witnessed first hand that when ordinary people approach the human rights organisations in Australia for advice and help, they actually don’t get any of what they are looking for.  We can say that Australia is a democratic society with equal rights for everyone however can we safely state that it is the same rule for every single one of us?  I also would like to ask Ms Julia Gillard “what is the great hurry in all of this”? 
      Personally speaking most certainly look forward to the day that we don’t have to resort to the anti Discrimination Board and Human Rights Commission for anything, really.  Simple because I am totally certain they are over worked and under paid right now handing out those brochures constantly.

      However let me tell you apart from the leaflets. brochures and some other phone numbers don’t expect any personal attention, no offence intended.  So I would like to ask Ms Julia Gillard if she is really serious about changing things for the better for the voters of Australia or only her self image in the political arena to be seen as if she truly has this hands on approach to human rights concerns across the board for everyone and no matter what?  Kind regards.

    • acotrel says:

      06:53am | 27/01/13

      ‘Wog. Breeder. Bimbo. Spaz. Are these terms a) offensive b) insulting or c) discriminatory?’

      None of my friends ever talk like that.

    • marley says:

      08:09am | 27/01/13

      ON the other hand, some of your comments about women clearly fit all three criteria.

    • Chris says:

      08:48am | 27/01/13

      Acrotel,  Did you not call Senator Crossins a cow a few days ago.instead of showing some compassion for her situation. Who sounds like the misogynist.

    • Mick says:

      09:26am | 27/01/13

      How about..misogynist,thug,hack,rancid ,sexist,neanderthal,dog,vile bully boy,Jack the Ripper,nuts,douche bag,rancid,deceptive,mindless..
      are any of these comments discriminatory or insulting?
      None of my friends talk like that but you and many of yours comrades do..don’t they acotrel?

    • Freeman says:

      12:37pm | 27/01/13

      Haha brilliant work, Mick. That truly illustrates how one eyed Acotrel is. I bet it is lost on him though.

    • Andrew says:

      04:26pm | 27/01/13

      Yeah right Acotrel, you live through the 60-80’s, was a unionist and a active member of the labor party and you or your friends never used any of those terms. Im surprised you remember how to use the keyboard , what with that alzheimers kicking in.

    • difficult lemon says:

      07:20am | 27/01/13

      Too right. Although I have always thought the phrase “political correctness gone mad” was somewhat tautological anyway.

    • Kipling says:

      07:31am | 27/01/13

      Well stated.

      The standout point here for me was that both sides pay their court costs. Therefore any changes to existing laws, or new laws enacted will clearly not be about justice, being offended or even seeking clarity, it will be about the one who can afford to present their position. On one hand that fits excellently with our (modern) material driven social structure, yet, clearly does not fit with any of the ideals of equity, justice, fairness, representation or even democracy.

      Obviously the solution is for us all to adopt a degree of misanthropy in our lives. If you don’t like people enough to talk to or about you are going to be pretty safe regarding these new laws….

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:24pm | 27/01/13

      Misanthropy doesn’t work. Believe me I’ve tried…...

    • Tomo says:

      07:37am | 27/01/13

      I am sure the debate over this will go on and on, some all for it (the comrades) and some against.
      The bottom line is that I want to have my say in this matter. Has this government, who knows what is best for us, got the decency to take this to the election and get a mandate from the people, as it did with the carbon tax (sarc).
      If it is such good policy, Gillard et al will have every confidence in letting us have our say on this draconian legislation.

    • Mack says:

      08:21am | 27/01/13

      Just like they took the carbon tax to the election? Don’t hold your breath buddy….  They will push this through with the help of their friends, the Greens and the two useless amigos in order to silence dissent before the coming election. They will probably use the legislation to whinge about the Oppositions campaign ads because they will be offended by the truth - there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, ironclad guarantee that we will have a surplus, I did nothing wrong etc etc….

    • Gerard says:

      09:46am | 27/01/13

      Actually, what are Windsor and Oakeshott’s positions on this? Oakeshott has pretty much said that he won’t support internet censorship, so I would have thought he’d probably reject this bill as well.

    • Nick says:

      07:52am | 27/01/13

      Hear hear. Just like our outrageous litigation courts reward stupidity, this legislation just aims to reward weakness. Grown adults, in court, telling a magistrate “he called me names”? What an absolute mockery.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:58am | 27/01/13

      Firstly let me congratulate the person who who described under the new discrimitary laws may or may not accept under the law and with no inferance that this person actualy accepts the name of Natasha Bita and under the same law, may or may not be described as she or her due to possesion of female genitalia, and with full understanding that by calling the person, she or her, I make no referance to the persons sexual orientation, for a great article.

      I understanding that by using I under the new laws I take full responsibility for my statement and relieve, those people who who described under the new discrimitary laws may or may not accept under the law and with no inferance that this person actualy accepts the position of moderator of “The Punch Forum,” of any responsibility for my statement.

      I think that those people, under the PC law, may or may not be described as he or him due to possesion of male genitalia, and with full understanding that by calling these people, he or him, I make no referance to the persons sexual orientation and who under the law may or may not be described as caucasion due to typical features of light skin sharp nose and double eyelids and make no inferance that these people accept that because the have light skin, sharp nose and double eyelids wish to be known as caucasion will like all previous legislation will be discriminated against in any form of legislation like this.

      I would also like to note that I and again absolving the punch moderator of any responsibility think any said legislation is bullshit and another reason to vote this the worst government in Australian history out!

    • Mack says:

      08:05am | 27/01/13

      Welcome to our Brave New World, 1984 style. Things have got like this because of political correctness gone mad, litigious complainers and greedy lawyers. Our government wants to keep us silent and in the dark. Quite sinister, really…..

    • Mouse says:

      08:18am | 27/01/13

      The fact that “Romeo” won the case and his employer had to pay thousands of dollars should be setting enough alarm bells blaring.  I mean to say, he won his case (what case???)?  Really, come on now, really?
      I can see the courts being clogged up for years with people having to prove their innocence over disgruntled employees/neighbours/customers!
      I wonder if roxon has even given a moments thought to the consequences of this thought bubble that will make the oh-so-entitled become the oh-so-insulted.  What a joke!

      But good, another of Labor’s little pearls that Tony Abbott can promise to repeal! Hurry up next election…    :o)

    • Boo says:

      08:48am | 27/01/13

      Right??

      His workmates should have sued him back for making them to listen to imaginary drivel about his pretend sex life!

      His employer should have sued him for time-wasting and gossiping on the job? I wonder how many times he used “slag” or “slut” to describe the alleged many women he was having these alleged encounters with?

      And the fact that both parties have to pay legal fees is ridiculous. You take me to court, over some crap? I’m paying nada. To you OR the courts.

      The Courts and the so-called Federal Government should be ashamed of themselves.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      10:42am | 27/01/13

      Many years ago a work mate picked up the nick-name of 9 inch for doing the same type of bragging.
      He would come in every Monday and brag about his exploites over the weekend, we would sit there, ‘go 9 inch’ , ‘your the man 9 inch’, with his head getting bigger all the time….
      Dont know to this day whether he ever worked out that we were refering to 9 inch’s of VACUUM, and that he sucked….. smile

    • Mouse says:

      12:10pm | 27/01/13

      ......... or 9 inches if soggy foam that he calls a brain! lol :o)

    • Neil says:

      08:26am | 27/01/13

      We should be storming parliament for this but I just feel the numbness you get when you can’t physically despise someone any further.

      The NSW Liberals are doing something similar in NSW because there hasn’t been enough arrests for “racism”.

      No doubt people will still be able to be racist towards white people and use terms like white trash.

    • Rambo says:

      08:31am | 27/01/13

      So when I get repeatedly called white c@#t when working in the outback I am now allowed to be offended and have something done about it?
      I suspect there will still be a few exemptions to who can be thin skinned though.

    • Peter says:

      08:37am | 27/01/13

      “Natasha Bita is News Ltd’s National Social Editor.”

      Says it all, really.  This piece is nothing but a hysterical rant from a person who obviously has no interest in providing people with facts and balanced analysis.  It is simply an agenda-fuelled rant which totally misrepresents the proposed legislation and it’s likely effects, all the while hyping the “political correctness” line to please her readers and foment an angry, slavering response to any reasonable debate about this proposed legislation.  Typical.

    • Neil says:

      11:12am | 27/01/13

      Yeah hysterical bullshit is it. A bit like the left constantly calling Australians “racist” and wanking on about how sophisticated they are because they fantasise over brown people and wear thick rimmed glasses. Even though they wouldn’t be caught dead living in Lakemba or Cabramatta.

      Please, give us a balanced view of this new legislation. I’d like to put my mind at ease instead of worrying about how darker skinned people are going to destroy me with it in the work place. For instance blatantly lie that I called them a name and take me to court where the onus would be on me to PROVE that I did not. So we’ll have to have 24/7 ubiquitous surveillance, cameras absolutely everywhere.

    • marley says:

      11:13am | 27/01/13

      How do you feel about Jim Spigelman’s comments a few weeks ago, criticising the legislation?  You can’t exactly label a former Chief Justice and Chairman of the ABC with being a Murdochite hack.

    • Brian says:

      11:19am | 27/01/13

      Personally, I’d have been very careful never to use ‘national’ and ‘social’ in the same title if I was in charge of such things… Add a couple of ‘ists’ and you have a problem…

    • Andrew says:

      04:31pm | 27/01/13

      Your obviously up to date with the legistration Peter, how about letting everyone on here know why its such a great piece of legistration, or do you just think its great because because your beloved ALP could never do anything stupid or wrong and you would jump off a cliff if they told you it was a good thing. I suspect the latter.

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:41pm | 27/01/13

      Looks like someone needs a quote from the Margaret Thatcher handbook!

      “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

    • Greg says:

      10:09am | 27/01/13

      It’s no coincidence that so many politicians, including Julia Gillard, are ex-lawyers.

      When they get voted out of parliament, they will need to find more work as professional parasites, so they are just looking after themselves again.

    • Chris L says:

      08:57am | 27/01/13

      I get the feeling this will be Labor’s workchoices. Howard went too far in removing protections for the average worker, Gillard is going too far in overprotecting everyone from everything.

      Pity the Democrats went bust.

    • TimB says:

      11:14am | 27/01/13

      I always thought the Carbon tax was Labor’s Workchoices wink

      But yes, this won’t help matters. It’s not enough for Julia to lose this year, I think she wants to lose spectacularly . There’s just not enough popcorn in the world.

    • Mouse says:

      12:40pm | 27/01/13

      It’s Ok TimB, I’ve got one of those popcorn machines, so popcorn ain’t a problem. My concern is the beer, we will need lots…and lots!  YAAY!  And steamers and those blowie whistlie things.  It will be a long year. Sorry ChrisL, I know you won’t be real happy, so maybe you can make the popcorn for TimB and me, we don’t want you to feel left out!  lol :o)

    • maria says:

      01:13pm | 27/01/13

      Pity the Democrats went bust…... sleeping with the mob

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:38pm | 27/01/13

      I was going to go to Hong Kong to vote but I’m thinking now I might come home to join in the celebration. With the Carbon Tax and all in between up to Nova and this insult to anything free and democratic even Mr Magoo couldn’t lose sight of this victory. Where will be the best party with the best and coldest beer? I’ll absentee from there.

    • Terry2 says:

      08:57am | 27/01/13

      I recently heard on ABC RN radio that the term ‘mixed race’ was no longer acceptable when describing somebody of ...mixed race.
      Then when Nova Peris described herself as ” a part Aboriginal woman” she was criticised by certain sectors of the aboriginal community including one aboriginal correspondent to The Australian who said : ” If she (Peris) understood present day aboriginal thinking she should know that this description is outmoded. There are no categories of aboriginality. Such terms are no longer used. We are aboriginal despite the admixture of our blood.”
      Andrew Bolt pointed to this odd form of posturing whereby it is PC to deny part of one’s ancestry when it suits and, it seems that it is politically incorrect and actionable if ethnic accuracy is identified. 
      I have Anglo-Irish heritage and I neither see that as a badge of honour nor one of shame, it’s merely a historical fact. For an aboriginal person of mixed heritage to actively deny part of that heritage seems to be a sad rejection of an relevant ancestral fact.

    • Peter says:

      09:10am | 27/01/13

      And another thing, Natasha, you cite this “Romeo” case, and you also refer to it at length in another article for The Australian, yesterday.  In fact, you hang your entire article on it. 

      But what you don’t do is provide us with any names or details of that case.  You say it was settled for “thousands of dollars” but that it was a confidential settlement.  So how do you know the amount and, indeed, the terms of that settlement?  You say they called him Romeo “in the true Australian larrakin tradition” yet, as you say in the article, they Employer willingly settled the case without a fight.  Sounds to me like there was more to it than whay you say.  Why do I get the feeling that you are not telling both sides of the story?  Your only reference is to some industrial manager who negotiated the settlement.  Did you speak to the complainant?  Did you make any attempt to find out what the complainant had to say?

      Oh that’s right - it was “confidential”.  But the Employer was happy to talk about the details, weren’t they?  Was that part of the settlement?  That the Employer would be allowed to talk to reporters but not the complainant.  The whole thing sounds really dodgy to me.  It sounds like there is a lot more to this than you let on.  Care to provide us with some more details?  Perhaps Media Watch should have a look at this.

    • Kersten says:

      09:23am | 27/01/13

      Maybe 1984 wasn’t as far off the ball as we thought. Maybe it should have been 2024. I’m betting Thoughtcrime won’t end up jut being the flight of fancy of a sci-fi writer soon enough wink

    • Reg Whiteman says:

      09:30am | 27/01/13

      Looks like George Orwell was very prophetic about the future. What an absolute absurdity sure to generate all sorts of vexatious litigation. “New Speak” and “Double Think” will soon be the law - just like the re-writing of history that now proves all sorts of things that never happened.

      When you say “where homosexuality is not only accepted but celebrated” I think you are embellishing things quite considerably. Indeed, I am “insulted and offended” by such a claim. The “Gay Mardi Gras” hardly draws a crowd anymore (we’ve all seen the “dykes on bikes” and leather-clad dancing boys - all passé now) and nobody straight “celebrates” the genetic aberration of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not “accepted”, it is generally mutely tolerated and barely raises an eyebrow in Australia anymore; exposure has faded the “shock” value - the same can’t be said for the USA. Personally, I feel sympathy towards homosexuals in the same measure as I feel it towards anyone else who suffers an incurable genetic aberration. But “accept” and “celebrate”, not bloody likely!

    • daniel says:

      09:39am | 27/01/13

      If the proposed new anti-discrimination laws are passed [without revision], then learn another language. It works for me and I can get away with saying some horrendous things in public.

    • Greg says:

      09:54am | 27/01/13

      The irony is that nobody is more offensive than the politicians who want to pass these ridiculous laws.

      Not that they will hold themselves to the same standard, as the hypocrites will invoke parliamentary privilege before they start their offensive diatribes.

      But exemptions will become inevitable. How could it ever be unlawful for people to say offensive things about Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones?

      No doubt some “affirmative action” type laws will soon follow, making it legal to say offensive things about “hate speech”, which will be defined as anything that conflicts with ALP/Green policies. The Australian Journalists Association will demand them.

      Just as affirmative action laws make some people more equal than others, left wing speech will become more free than non-complying speech.

      Forget about changing this country’s flag, we need to change this country’s name.

      Orwellia seems like an appropriate alternative.

    • Ian1 says:

      10:01am | 27/01/13

      Does this mean music heard or overheard in public venues, which could no longer be deemed insulting or offensive to anybody without remedy for damages, would finally inculcate the publican?

    • Nev says:

      10:01am | 27/01/13

      I wonder just how does one prove that someone wasn’t offended?
      Also I was under the impression that the defendant pays costs win or lose.

      If this draft manages to gain ascent in anything resembling it’s current form I think it will be safest to avoid interacting with people in public places as much as possible. Look at no one, talk to no one, unless its totally unavoidable. In fact limiting exposure to public places to essential visits only would be best, much safer to sit at home.
      Fake Id in addittion to real id could also be usefull, which brings me to another point, what powers would the offendee have to ascertain who you are in order to prosecute you?

    • Helt says:

      10:54am | 27/01/13

      What for this mean for bouncers and patrons? Can either sue the other now?

    • Helt says:

      10:54am | 27/01/13

      What for this mean for bouncers and patrons? Can either sue the other now?

    • Schmavo says:

      10:57am | 27/01/13

      Jeez, settle down princess! Can I get in trouble for that one? I heard the mother of all politcal correctness when someone described a collection of ‘challenged’ people as “medically complex”. WTF?

    • Anniebello says:

      11:48am | 27/01/13

      I can see a problem with the ‘both sides pay’. Who gets the free legal aid? The person who was ‘offended’  - I’d put money on it.

      And even if both parties actually pay, the damage done to someone’s finances, not to mention reputation can’t be put right by money.

      At best it’s ‘protection’ for some parts of society whose cases will probably never get to a court anyway because they aren’t members of the selected minority groups. For those selected groups, it’s legalised bullying, mud-slinging and revenge.

      And the really scary part ... what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    • Benny of Bendigo says:

      11:52am | 27/01/13

      Thankyou Reg Whiteman for your well argued opinion.  You may well be prosecuted for it in the future, should this proposed, ridiculous legislation, come into law. I may find myself in a similar position, as I am in total agreement with you. Whilst I am quite prepared to “tolerate” others’ lifestyle choices, where they do not conflict with my own, that in no way denotes “acceptance” and most certainly not “celebration”!

    • David V. says:

      12:18pm | 27/01/13

      We have every right to be worried. People have migrated here precisely to enjoy freedom and democracy, not to live in some kind of Orwellian utopia.

    • Yuri says:

      01:56pm | 27/01/13

      I’m guessing ‘social origin’ is left vague and undefined so it can cover anything that doesn’t fall into the other categories. Thereby giving those that are determined to be offended the certainty that they will have at least one accusation to level at their pet grievance.

      I’m wondering what the actual point is of being able to take to court anyone who offends you? I assume there will be fines/compensation as punishment; nobody would go through an expensive court case just to make someone apologise, would they?

      On related matters, would it possible under the new laws to find public breastfeeding offensive? Not that I do, but it would be interesting to note after the events of the last week.

    • Bear says:

      03:20pm | 27/01/13

      ‘national social’ editor. The truth is out at last about what the righties really think. I don’t believe some airy fairy ideas are about to become law. Now say 3 zeig heils and take a chill pill.

    • Andrew says:

      04:34pm | 27/01/13

      Yeah but your the same loser that thinks Julie Bishop is a member of emily list which is a labour party organisation, so what the hell would you know.

    • Bruce Mullinger says:

      04:14pm | 27/01/13

      The proposed Human Rights and anti- Discrimination Bill may be a godsend to those such as myself who are easily offended. There are many things I find offensive including intellectual narcissism, economic sophistry, the deification of the economy, self righteous sanctimony, foreign ownership of national resources, privatisation of public assets, recklessly excessive and un-mandated immigration, both parents at work when children are at home, bad manners, halitosis and public flatulence.
      And I am especially offended by those who take exception to my postings on this forum. See you in court.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter