Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Australians chafe against cotton-woollen age
Australian men once routinely referred to their closest friend as "an old bastard" in the confident knowledge his mate would never accuse him of being insensitive, or even inaccurate.
Being born outside wedlock even a mere 40 years ago still carried serious social stigma.
But such a potentially inflammatory insult was received in the affectionate spirit in which it was delivered and there's no record of a recipient seeking compensation, or a court-ordered apology.
Australia's federal Parliament is expected to soon pass legislation many suggest will make it illegal to diminish or demean our fellow human beings.
Not even the most rabid opponents of proposed new anti-discrimination laws (still in draft form) suggest they'll make outlaws of two aging Australians insulting one another in the front bar of their local pub.
But there are credible suggestions Australia, one of the few western democracies without a bill of rights, is moving toward a new cotton-woollen age where the government plays nanny in the national nursery.
Mark Dreyfus, a federal cabinet secretary in the ruling Labour government connected with the framing of the legislation, says there's nothing to be afraid of.
"It's not going to be illegal to insult or offend anyone,'' he told the ABC current affairs show The 7.30 Report.
Dreyfus said the new laws would do little more than consolidate five existing acts to give a more coherent legal framework to Australia's anti-discrimination law.
While Sec. 19 of the proposed act defines discrimination as behaviour that offends, insults or discriminates, the law would do nothing more than defend the most vulnerable against brutal verbal attack, he said.
He offered up the scenario of a woman constantly harassed by a boss who demeans and denigrates her on a daily basis.
"They are designed to give protection against a women who has a superior who says, 'You are useless, you are just a woman, what would you know.' ''
Opposition MP George Brandis, a highly credentialed lawyer, believes something far more sinister than the protection of the vulnerable is underway.
He identifies a new definition of what constitutes discrimination residing in the new laws, which include bans on insulting someone based on political opinion or social origins.
"I think we should have a zero-tolerance approach toward laws, which tell us what we may say or what we may not say in political discussion,' he said.
Sen. Brandis says the Australian Liberal/National Party Opposition is strongly against imposing moral, political or cultural censorship where an expression of an opinion can lead you into a courtroom.
Oddly enough, the new laws may yet hold up the rights of religious organizations to maintain their own brand of discrimination against those who don't match their view of the world.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, whose de facto relationship with her live-in partner could possibly preclude her from employment at a Christian school, says the nation should remain calm while the framework of the laws is hammered out.
She says the laws are only in a draft form.
"We'll get the feedback and we'll consider it,'' she says.
Michael Madigan is the Winnipeg Free Press correspondent in Australia. He writes mostly about politics for the Brisbane-based Courier Mail.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 25, 2013 A13
Fact Check
Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.
More Analysis
- Back to Top
- Return to Analysis
Poll
Most Popular Analysis
- Shocking exclusion
- Will stereotype perceptions of crack cocaine go to pot?
- Manitoba showed that a 'Senate' can be abolished
- Airports belong to Canadian taxpayers
- Flat-rate property tax tabled
- Vancouver water cheap, unmetered
- Ford puts Toronto on the map at last
- Boston bomber love-bombed by fangirls
- To call 'Cliffy' a character doesn't do him justice
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Ford puts Toronto on the map at last
- BlackBerry: off the mat, hitting back
- Physician networks a way forward for health care
- 'Most hated man' in Senate
- Lower drug prices, lower costs, better care?
- Can't lose when ends justify means
- What is Struthers afraid of?
- How to humble wing nuts
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- A decade after Mad Cow — the legacy of a crisis
- Don, it's not about nakedness
- Speeding fine only half of it
- Ashton might try to get the facts straight
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- Ford puts Toronto on the map at last
- 'Done deal' offends Whiteshell cottagers
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Manitoba could follow B.C. on surrogacy issue
- City council can't decide which bus to ride
- The Angelina Jolie effect
- Shocking exclusion
- Manitoba showed that a 'Senate' can be abolished
- Manitoba could follow B.C. on surrogacy issue
- Flat-rate property tax tabled
- Shocking exclusion
- How to humble wing nuts
- What is Struthers afraid of?
- Bill 18 is perfect example of bad law
- THIS IS NO WAY TO MAKE A POINT!!!
- Harper embraces multilateralism on Arctic issues
- Elijah's essence was most easily found in the wilderness
- Manitoba showed that a 'Senate' can be abolished
- Mental health system lacking funds, awareness
- 'Genetic engineered' might save planet
- 'Done deal' offends Whiteshell cottagers
- Kim Sigurdson It's time for government fish monger to cut bait
- Speeding fine only half of it
- How CBC and others torque ratings
- Where is Canada's strategy to help Ukraine?
- Mother Nature springs into action
- Female chiefs needed
- Ashton might try to get the facts straight
- 'Longevity pensions' a promising idea
- Fisher could have been paid $16,000 for his 'wasted fish'
Ads by Google












You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.
Have Your Say
New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.
The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.