Larry Pickering comments on the offended nature of the left wing.
Change the names and terms into a New Zealand context…it is the same here as it is in NZ. Swap out Aborigine for Maori…
Greens and Laborâs Left dream of the perfect egalitarian PC world where no-one is offended by anything and everyone sleeps in the same conjugal bed. Well, thatâs not the way it works, fellas, and itâs you lotÂ that have made an art form of offending people.
No-one can agree with racial vilification, although we all come across it, but this debate is inane and widens, rather than closes, “the gap”.
Only a fool believes you could legislate to determine a degree of personal offence. Is âwhitie c…â less racially offensive than, âboongâ? Is âgwailoâ (white ghost) more racially offensive than âchinkâ? Is âwogâ racially offensive to a southern European when he refers to himself as a wog?
The terms, âPomâ, âKiwiâ, âNewfieâ, âYankâ, âJapâ, âCoonâ, âAboâ, âChinkâ, âWetbackâ, âFuzzy Wuzzyâ, âRagheadâ are all racially based, but which is legally racial bigotry? All, none or some?
What about “Shortarse” ,”Fatso” and “Freckles”? Are they less or more offensive?
Those terms, and hundreds of others, will always be used, sometimes affectionately and sometimes not. It depends on how they are used, how well you know the person and in what context.
There is no law that can decide “offence”! And there is no law that can determine oneâs legitimate or feigned degree of offence.
In the 1970s Labor tried to outlaw the term âWogâ, but unfortunately âPomâ and âKiwiâ were caught in the same legislative net, it was duly ignored.
Letâs not kid ourselves, existing law is all about Aborigines. But Aborigines are as guilty as we are of racially discriminatory remarks, at least in my experience. Reverse racism is rampant wherever Aborigines reside in numbers.
There is a massive battle going on in Australia right now. Tony Abbott is seeking to remove the hate speech provisions and the left is fighting hard.
PM Abbottâs proposed changes to current legislation will place “free speech” above what an individual might perceive as âoffensiveâ. And “free speech” should win that battle every time.
Andrew Bolt was legally vilified for discussing âwhite Aboriginesâ and how they use a nominated ethnicity for financial advantage.
Okay, Bolt got a few facts wrong but he was right to say this is happening and right to ask is it fair.
Legally you are not required to prove you are of Aboriginal descent, that’s “offensive”, you need only to declare you are, and you can then join an entitlement queue that heavily favours Aborigines.
Is that fair to those who legitimately depend on social services?
This racial anomaly is what Andrew Bolt was debating, yet it was deemed illegal for him to do so, much to “white Aborigines’” delight.
Free speech was what our forefathers fought for, itâs a jewel in our Aussie ethic. No Labor/Green Lefty or Aboriginal activist should be allowed to take it from us and we want it back!