In Australia, the n-word is no longer a criminal offense.

[Meshugger]

No more social engineering, people are allowed to be offensive again.

The words "n*****" and "sand-n*****" are not offensive to reasonable people, a Queensland magistrate has ruled.

 

Magistrate Michael O'Driscoll made the ruling yesterday in a case where a retiree was before Southport Magistrates Court after sending a strongly-worded fax to a local politician.

 

Christie Turner, a staff member working for the politician, was offended when she read the fax from Denis Mulheron which called on the Labor Party to strengthen immigration laws against "n*****", "sand-n***** terrorists" and Muslim women who have been circumcised.

 

He also referred to indigenous Australians as "Abos", the Gold Coast Bulletin reports.

 

Mr Mulheron defended his language, telling the court: "I'm not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set ... to me that is everyday language".

 

Mr O'Driscoll said that the language used in the fax was not strong enough to be punishable.

 

"The words used were crude, unattractive and direct but were not offensive to a reasonable person," he said.

 

If you are offended, you are not a reasonable person :smug:

[Hurlshort]

If you vote for this guy, you are a douchebag.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, I wonder if white slurs are illegal.

[Raithe]

There is a slight element of oddity there.. certain groups are allowed to use those names within themselves and its okay.. but if you're not a member of that group it's offensive..

 

Kind of like "white pride" automatically jumps to racist behaviour, and "black pride" is viewed as socially more acceptable.

 

Zealotry either side of the equation sucks. But it would be nice if there was a bit more balance in it all.

 

Plus offensive speech is one of those groovy areas where it doesn't matter how you actually "meant" what you said. It's how someone else perceived it...

[Gorgon]

I've said it before, but I much prefer if language and so called 'hate-speak' is not illegal. This way everyone has a handy way of telling the doushebags from the non dousheags. What's in a word anyway. The courts can't decide if one word carries racist attitudes because they don't also decide how it's used.

[Hell Kitty]

Hmm, I wonder if white slurs are illegal.

 

Of course not, and neither are the words used above. The thread title is misleading because the thread starter has misunderstood the story.

 

Man sends racist fax to politician, he was taken to court over it but found to have broken no law. There was a similar case recently where a cop arrested a man for telling her to "f--k off" but it was thrown out because swearing isn't actually illegal.

[Gorgon]

Really, you will get a hefty fine here if you badmouth a policeman. I agree with that actually, if they don't enforce a certain air of authority about their persons the weekend crowd would eat them alive.

[Rosbjerg]

Really, you will get a hefty fine here if you badmouth a policeman. I agree with that actually, if they don't enforce a certain air of authority about their persons the weekend crowd would eat them alive.

 

Actually you only get a fine if you target a specific police officer and you imply that your statement in a universal fact - like saying "you are a ****-head", if you instead say "I believe the police are ****-heads" then you don't get a fine.. gotta love the system..

[Meshugger]

Hmm, I wonder if white slurs are illegal.

 

Of course not, and neither are the words used above. The thread title is misleading because the thread starter has misunderstood the story.

 

Man sends racist fax to politician, he was taken to court over it but found to have broken no law. There was a similar case recently where a cop arrested a man for telling her to "f--k off" but it was thrown out because swearing isn't actually illegal.

 

A thread called "Free speech is still allowed in a western country" doesn't really have the same punch to it

[Hiro Protagonist]

I would like to remind everyone, that not so long ago, saying the words "God" or "Jesus" spoken out of biblical context was considered blasphemy and punishable by death.

 

All Nationalities and countries have a slang name to describe them, what makes one more offensive than the other? They are called words. Does the term "black fella" make you cry and ashamed? How about "white fella"? "White bread"? "Trailor Trash?", "Bogan?"

 

I don't agree with the findings that the words are not offensive, but agree with the findings that they are not offensive enough to be criminal.

 

I personally think "verbal assault" is a joke. Forget racial motivations for a minute, but if I were to call you a wanker or the like, that can technically be classed as verbal assault. Does calling somebody a name that hurts their poor little feelings deserve a criminal case? Or even a civil case for that matter? Or do people just need to toughen up and stop being offended at everything?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Plus offensive speech is one of those groovy areas where it doesn't matter how you actually "meant" what you said. It's how someone else perceived it...

 

I knew political correctness went too far with words when "Bah Bah Black Sheep" had to be edited for sensitivity purposes.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Good for australia.

 

If you vote for this guy, you are a douchebag.

 

Not really; free speech is a great thing.

[Moose]

Depends who's talking.

[Gorgon]

When people say things like 'free speech is not a licence to slander', or that free speech has to be used 'responsibly' I think they are missing the point. Surely that's exactly what it is. You take the good with the bad and let people say what's on their minds, offensive, crazy, whatever, but most of all free speech.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think we should stop being so intolerant towards our non-white friends. I hereby suggest that we shall abandon offensive terms such as negro, latino, turk and so on in favor of the less negatively charged "racially challenged individuals"

[Meshugger]

I think we should stop being so intolerant towards our non-white friends. I hereby suggest that we shall abandon offensive terms such as negro, latino, turk and so on in favor of the less negatively charged "racially challenged individuals"

 

[lord of flies]

There is a slight element of oddity there.. certain groups are allowed to use those names within themselves and its okay.. but if you're not a member of that group it's offensive..

Yes, and this makes sense. If you call your wife a bitch, it's very different from if someone else calls your wife a bitch. Same thing. A member of the group has "ownership" of the term.

Kind of like "white pride" automatically jumps to racist behaviour, and "black pride" is viewed as socially more acceptable.

That's because "white pride" is linked to white supremacism, the dominant view of race in the West and especially within their governments "until recently." Whereas, "black pride" is a part of the struggle against white supremacism, by attempting to reclaim the public view of race from the predominant white supremacist version.

Really, you will get a hefty fine here if you badmouth a policeman. I agree with that actually, if they don't enforce a certain air of authority about their persons the weekend crowd would eat them alive.

**** the police. There, I said it.

[Orogun01]

Yes, and this makes sense. If you call your wife a bitch, it's very different from if someone else calls your wife a bitch. Same thing. A member of the group has "ownership" of the term.

Really? What about the wife's feelings. Offenses are still offenses no matter who says it as long as they intended it as such, there is no ownership of a word.

 

That's because "white pride" is linked to white supremacism, the dominant view of race in the West and especially within their governments "until recently." Whereas, "black pride" is a part of the struggle against white supremacism, by attempting to reclaim the public view of race from the predominant white supremacist version.

Weren't the Black Panthers the same as those groups, or any gang of thugs. They were as racists and had the same militant view of the "war of the races".

I'm against racism but I give just due were is deserved and those groups did nothing to advance their race and in fact alienated people from it.

[lord of flies]

Really? What about the wife's feelings. Offenses are still offenses no matter who says it as long as they intended it as such, there is no ownership of a word.

Obviously the wife factors into it as well. So does the person that our hypothetical black man is describing when he uses the n-word. But it is, nonetheless, very different.

Weren't the Black Panthers the same as those groups, or any gang of thugs. They were as racists and had the same militant view of the "war of the races".

No. Black Panthers recognized that their communities were victimized by the United States justice system, and tried to fight against that victimization, even if their struggle was not always prosecuted in the most rational or pacifistic manner possible. White supremacists are not "victimized," they are the ones who victimize. When an oppressed group rises against its oppressors and applies force irrationally, it is a million times more understandable, more sympathetic, more righteous than when an oppressor group uses force against the oppressed in an irrational manner.

[Orogun01]

Obviously the wife factors into it as well. So does the person that our hypothetical black man is describing when he uses the n-word. But it is, nonetheless, very different.

They are only different perspectives and intended usages, the most common example of a positive is Mark Twain usage of the word as term of endearment. The problem is that the word still carries a lot of hate behind it and it's negative connotations cannot be just forgotten, it was created as a derogative term to describe people who were considered below human. So there is a lot of history to the word.

 

No. Black Panthers recognized that their communities were victimized by the United States justice system, and tried to fight against that victimization, even if their struggle was not always persecuted in the most rational or pacifistic manner possible. White supremacists are not "victimized," they are the ones who victimize. When an oppressed group rises against its oppressors and applies force irrationally, it is a million times more understandable, more sympathetic, more righteous than when an oppressor group uses force against the oppressed in an irrational manner.

Black panthers were a reaction towards the abuses against the black community, there were still more successful groups and attempts at emancipation. In fact it is this militant view that hurt their cause more than anything since confrontation is not the best way to fight for equality, a mistake that it is common today. This is not about who is/was victimized, is about creating an equal ground for everyone.

[Humodour]

Crude language (not just this, but the whole gamut of vulgarity) is Australian. It's not nice on the ears for outsiders, but it's a cultural thing. It even bleeds through regularly into our TV shows and political speeches.

 

The guy in the article is a racist ****, but that's about it.

[Guard Dog]

Crude language (not just this, but the whole gamut of vulgarity) is Australian. It's not nice on the ears for outsiders, but it's a cultural thing. It even bleeds through regularly into our TV shows and political speeches.

 

The guy in the article is a racist ****, but that's about it.

Of couse, you guys are the descedants of criminals!

[Whipporwill]

Of couse, you guys are the descedants of criminals!

 

And criminals are used to having people not trust them, so clearly I cannot choose the goblet in front of you.

[Humodour]

Crude language (not just this, but the whole gamut of vulgarity) is Australian. It's not nice on the ears for outsiders, but it's a cultural thing. It even bleeds through regularly into our TV shows and political speeches.

 

The guy in the article is a racist ****, but that's about it.

Of couse, you guys are the descedants of criminals!

 

I imagine this is exactly the reason, frankly.

[Orogun01]

Crude language (not just this, but the whole gamut of vulgarity) is Australian. It's not nice on the ears for outsiders, but it's a cultural thing. It even bleeds through regularly into our TV shows and political speeches.

 

The guy in the article is a racist ****, but that's about it.

Of couse, you guys are the descedants of criminals!

 

I imagine this is exactly the reason, frankly.

Problem solved, now let's go ahead and have a ****ing barbie.