“The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom of society. In my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended… because one represents openness – and the other represents oppression.”
– British comedian Rowan Atkinson, 2012.
The right of candid expression is the hallmark of an open society. The ability to challenge ideas and the perceived wisdom of the day, in a free and unfettered manner – even at the risk of offending others – is the cornerstone of liberty.
In Britain, the right to offend had been eroded by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. It stated that a person was guilty of an offence if he “uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour… or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Through the inclusion of the word “insulting” in Section 5, criminal law had been extended to protect people from having their feelings hurt.
In 2005, 21 year old Sam Brown, an Oxford University student, fell victim to the law and had to spend the night in a police cell. His crime was to make comments about the sexuality of a Police officer’s horse: “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”
A newspaper report explained that he had been out with friends celebrating the end of his final exams when he staggered past two police officers on horses in the early hours. Despite requests to desist, the inebriated Sam Brown repeatedly asked an officer if his horse was gay. As a result, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks and ‘causing harassment, harm or distress’. He was handcuffed, taken to a nearby police station and freed the following day. He was fined £80.
Mr Brown said in his defence, “As far as I know calling a horse ‘gay’ is not offensive. I don’t think I’ve committed a crime – I wasn’t talking about a human being. A friend I was with is homosexual and doesn’t think I did anything wrong.” He appealed against the fine, saying the officers had been “very nice about it. I think they realised how absurd the charge was.”
A Police spokesman said, “Although he thought calling a police horse gay was funny, it could cause offence to people walking past.” However, the case was thrown out of the Oxford Magistrates’ Court, for lack of evidence.
This absurd case featured in a campaign launched in 2012 to remove the word “insulting” from the Public Order Act. Comedian Rowan Atkinson, the star of Mr Bean, was one of the high profile celebrities who joined the campaign. He told Parliament, “When I heard of some of these more ludicrous offences, I remembered that I had been here before in a fictional context. I once did a show called Not the Nine O’Clock News, and we did a sketch where Griff Rhys-Jones played Constable Savage, a manifestly racist police officer to whom I, as his station commander, is giving a dressing down for arresting a black man on a whole string of ridiculous, trumped up and ludicrous charges. The charges for which Constable Savage arrested Mr. Winston Kodogo of 55 Mercer Road were these:
‘Walking on the cracks in the pavement’. ‘Walking in a loud shirt in a built up area during the hours of darkness’. And one of my favourites, ‘Walking around all over the place’. He was also arrested for ‘Urinating in a public convenience’ and ‘Looking at me in a funny way’.
Mr Atkinson went on to say, “Who would have thought that we would end up with a law that would allow life to imitate art so exactly. I read somewhere, a defender of the status quo claiming that the fact that the gay horse case was dropped after the arrested man refused to pay the fine… was indicative of a law working well, ignoring the fact that the only reason those cases were dropped was because of the publicity that they had attracted. The Police sensed that ridicule was just around the corner and withdrew the actions. But what about the thousands of other cases that did not enjoy the oxygen of publicity? That weren’t quite ludicrous enough to attract media attention? Even for those actions that were withdrawn, people were arrested, questioned, taken to court and then released. That isn’t a law working properly: that is censoriousness of the most intimidating kind, guaranteed to have a ‘chilling effect’ on free expression and free protest.”
Campaigners argued that the law had created an ‘authoritarian’ and ‘controlling’ society. There was a ‘new intolerance’ – an intense desire to ‘gag’ uncomfortable voices of dissent. However, such issues are not addressed by silencing the opposition through the force of the law, but by airing and debating them in a robust and open manner. Society, they said, needed to toughen up, so as not to take offence at any criticism.
Rowan Atkinson concluded, “The repeal of this clause will be only a small step, but it will I hope be a critical one in a project to pause and slowly rewind a creeping culture of censoriousness. It is a small skirmish in the battle to deal with what Sir Salman Rushdie refers to as the Outrage Industry: self-appointed arbiters of the public good, encouraging media-stoked outrage, to which the police feel under terrible pressure to react. A newspaper rings up Scotland Yard: someone has said something slightly insulting on Twitter about someone who we think a national treasure: what are you going to do about it? And the police panic and they scrabble around and then grasp the inappropriate lifeline of Section 5 of the Public Order Act: that thing where they can arrest anybody for saying anything that might be construed by anybody else as insulting. They don’t need a complainant, or a real victim: they need only to make the judgment that somebody could have been offended if they had heard or read what has been said. The storms that surround Twitter and Facebook comment have raised some fascinating issues about free speech. So far, we have learnt two important lessons. Firstly, that we all have to take responsibility for what we say, which is not a bad lesson to learn. And secondly, we’ve learnt how appallingly prickly and intolerant society has become of even the mildest adverse comment.”
While the Reform Section 5 Campaign succeeded in removing the word “insulting” from British law in 2014, it remains in New Zealand law – raising concerns over whether it too is having a ‘chilling effect’ and should be removed. Under Sections 61 and 131 of the Human Rights Act, it is unlawful to promote anything “threatening, abusive, or insulting”, that could create racial disharmony. While the penalty is imprisonment for up to 3 months or a fine of up to $7,000, the Human Rights Commission claims that the threshold for complaints is high, and must be balanced against the right to free expression.
Without a doubt, there is a growing intolerance to free speech around the world. A recent article in the Economist found, “From the mosques of Cairo to the classrooms at Yale, all sorts of people and groups are claiming a right not to be offended. This is quite different from believing that people should, in general, be polite. A right not to be offended implies a power to police other people’s speech. ‘Taking offence has never been easier, or indeed, more popular’.”
The executive chairman of Saatchi & Saatchi, New Zealander Kevin Roberts, has just found out how dangerous it is to speak the truth, having been forced to resign last week, following a storm of criticism from feminist groups after he challenged a prevailing view about diversity. When asked by a reporter whether there was a problem with a lack of gender diversity in the advertising industry, he said, “not in my view”, and that he wouldn’t waste any time worrying about it at his company.
A furore also erupted last week over the Chiefs rugby team’s behaviour on a night out after losing a rugby semi-final, when a stripper who had been hired, accused the team of heckling and groping her.
Margaret Comer, an executive of the Gallagher Group, the team’s sponsor, who is also on the board of the Waikato Women’s Refuge, initially refused to condemn the players’ actions, saying, “If a woman takes her clothes off and walks around in a group of men, what are we supposed to do if one of them tries to touch her? It’s not nice and perhaps the stripper shouldn’t have been hired, but I’m reluctant to say that the boys were out of line.”
By the end of the week, she had issued an apology: “I sincerely apologise for my comments, I feel terrible that my poor choice of words have caused hurt and alarm… I most definitely do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women and am extremely regretful that my words do not reflect the high standard I expect of myself and those I am associated with.” Whether the apology saves her, remains to be seen.
While calling a spade a spade has always been a fundamental part of the ‘Kiwi way’, people are more reluctant to speak out nowadays for fear of being targeted and accused of racism, sexism, homophobia – or the multitude of other politically correct labels used to silence opponents.
But there is a real danger to society when people no longer feel they can speak the truth, especially in the public policy arena, where robust debate is crucial.
Take the case of the absurd comments recently made by Waikato University’s Associate Professor Leonie Pihama, that colonisation is the cause Maori child abuse: “Historical trauma caused by colonisation is the root cause of intergenerational issues, particularly child abuse within Maori families.”
Unchallenged, there is a real risk that such misconceptions could become the accepted orthodoxy – instead of being seen as part of the ideological agenda of the Maori supremacy movement.
In reality, since it is the breakdown of the family that creates the environment for child abuse to flourish, meaningful change, will only come through policies to strengthen the family.
US President Barak Obama – a strong advocate for the family – touched on this in 2008: “If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers are missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioural problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves…”
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, author and journalist, Mike Butler, has been investigating another race-based misrepresentation that also has its roots in family breakdown – this time an urgent claim to the Waitangi Tribunal by retired probation officer Tom Hemopo, blaming the government for the high numbers of Maori in jail. In his excellent report, Mike warns:
“Any reasonable person would dismiss the claim because, firstly, prisons are populated by people convicted for offending. Secondly, a person with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry should not be identified as exclusively Maori – if a Maori was defined as a person with at least 50 percent Maori ancestry, the Maori prison population would shrink dramatically and instantly. And thirdly, offenders are or should be responsible for their offending.”
It’s very dangerous indeed when society muzzles free speech. To debate complex issues, the right to speak our mind and stand by our beliefs – even at risk of insulting or offending others – is crucial. Surely free speech is far more important than appeasing the sensitivities of those who take themselves and others too seriously.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
Do you believe “insulting” should be removed from the Human Rights Act?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Too open to unintended consequences. | Laurie |
| If I say something trivial that offends you, am I allowed to be offended that you’ve found my remark offensive, and am I then the offender or the offended? I find the whole idea rather offensive I’m afraid. | Stevo |
| I wonder IF or WHEN political correctness will fade away in our desire for freedom. One needs to consider the alternatives – lets just think of ISIS as an example! | Stuart |
| We are getting too Politically Correct these days, Punch & Judy, Noddy & Big Ears are labelled as offensive! Kids are taught at school that noone is a winner. We are becoming a nation of weakling fools. | Wayne |
| Yes, for all the rights reasons as set out in the article. | Audrey |
| Impossible to define. | Bryan |
| In this PC world, its too dangerous. We heard on TV “being offended is the new black”. Same sort of thing. I am all for free speech. | Sheena |
| So many people these days are ‘offended’ by almost everything they disagree with. Disagreeing with something or someone is no reason to be offended and even if you are-get over it! | Roger |
| Political correctness is the ruination of Western culture and a weapon of left leaning liberals. | Monica |
| Of Course. How stupid are members of Parliament. | Peter |
| The word insulting is emotive and is certainly can never be a precise definition – what may be “insulting” to one person may not draw any reaction or emotion from another. Its inclusion does nothing other than constrict free speech. | Michael |
| Insultingly obvious. | Barry |
| My impression is that the introduction and application of these laws are designed to subdue and eventually eradicate any criticism about distorted and unjust presentations of facts ( historical or otherwise). This plays perfectly into the hands of these propagandists who do their level best establishing this ‘blame everybody else’ culture so they can avoid standing up and take responsibility their own abject failures.The magic word ‘racist’ –being applied at every turn– is a prime example of how our society is attacked on a daily basis. Esp our children and young people are at risk to being thoroughly brain washed if they have no exposure to independent and critical information. It only takes one generation to create a ‘brave new world” | Michael |
| I course it should be removed, anyone who thinks otherwise is a f…..g idiot, and needs to grow up.. | Brent |
| As a nation we are now wary of commenting on issues which, though relevant, are contentious for fear of offending interest groups. | Irvine |
| Get a life and be a kiwi not a complaining wimp. | Bryan |
| Most New Zealanders are wimps. They never put their hand up and complain at the time they are offended, but snivel later. If everyone told it as it is when it is, we would all know where they stand at any given time. | Warehi |
| It’s time we hardened up….called a spade a spade…..before we get confused by the pedantics of it all. | Ced |
| Yes, it should be removed, but it is such a small issue and there are many other much more important issues to address. | Peter |
| Sure do. | Tim |
| Having been a victom of having an opinion that was deemed to be insulting I heartedly agree we shoul remove it. | Huria |
| There’s no need for people to be so precious! | Kynan |
| What next ? | Lance |
| It’s insulting that it was ever put in there in the first place. | Steve |
| Yes. This term has too wide a meaning and thus can lead to many interpretations. | Graeme |
| Yes. But do we really think that with the Helen Clark connection at the United Nations; plus the fact that National signed the Indigenous Rights Act this will happen?? It should but we have, as a nation, moved well away from protecting the individual. especially if that person is not a Maori. As for the rest feminists rule, and this is the day of the small vocal party; intent on carrying forward Human Rights to the extreme limits. What is more, they are getting away with it daily. | Brian |
| Without a doubt. | David |
| Definitely yes. | Terry |
| Ridiculous to have it in the first place, it should go and the populace should toughen up. | Shane |
| What’s this nonsense about maori being ‘first people’. Even their own history acknowledges that there were fair skinned people here when the maoris first arrived. Where are they now? Most were killed or enslaved – the objects of the maori culture of violence. | Alan |
| Say it like it is…. | Ross |
| Madness. We have not the guts to address real problems it is all about money and greed. | Dave |
| People have to learn to accept they can be offended. | Colin |
| I am insulted that I am not allowed to insult anyone!!! | Mitch |
| Without doubt !!! | Tony |
| Remember the old saying,WHO EVER THE SHOE FITS PUTS IT ON AND WEARS IT! | Theodorus |
| Absolutely. It contributes to the PC culture that is causing great damage to society. | Ronmac |
| Let free speech reign. | David |
| This mandy pandy PC has gone too far… | Maurice |
| The human rights act is a farce anyway. When I put in a claim my government was denying me access to nature which must be the most basic human right they treated it with disdain. In my case it was Hemp but it could also be applied if the control freaks in Wellington decide that avocados are not of their liking and ban them. | Peter |
| Freedom of speech or Political correctness – the choice is sooooo easy. | John |
| The Human Rights Commission should be renamed “The Maori Rights & Gay Bastards Commission” and don’t get me started on that bloody Devoy. | Steve |
| The Chinese have a similar law – what does that suggest? The political system must destroy family and freedoms in order to transfer citizen allegiances to the state. This is the path we have been on for about 7 terms of government to travel down the socialist path. Australia is now looking to remove a similar section of law completely. So should NZ. A Police state is appealing in view of the developing social unrest but it would be more to the benefit of society to restore Good Values. | Frederick |
| Rowan Atkinson for UNSecretary General! | Dick |
| NO laws challenging free speech should be enacted. To do so, leads down a very slippery slope to fascism as we are seeing now in Europe and America. The ‘prestitute’ are now as a matter of routine censoring people and the real state of their Countries are being suppressed as a result. we MUST NOT allow that nonsense in New Zealand. | Charles |
| The P C madness that has been introduced to dumb the population down, is of course working as planned. Socialist law dictates that we are all equal. Consequently the civilized races are expected to stay at the level of the stone-age people who would not have invented the wheel yet. The National branch of the Labour Party, headed by ‘Key’ are all infavour of this. I can-not be insulted or offended when Leonie Pihama claims Maori babies were safe from harm before colonisation, yet she is insulted if I remind her that these same babies were killed & eaten, long before the arrival of the European immigrants. I rest my case.. | A.G.R. |
| You bet, but will it happen? No because there are too many thin skinned ideates stopping it. | Athol |
| “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” (1862) It’s in your hands so WALK AWAY. | Fiona |
| Law change absolutely necessary. | Brian |
| The “law” becomes ever more puerile & removed from reality – IMO. | Isabel |
| When free speech is gone we are doomed. Gramscian Political Correctness must be held largely responsible for this situation we have arrived at today. I can highly recommend Steve Simpson’s edited compilation, DEFENDING FREE SPEECH. | Don |
| What next where do these tossers come from we have to many laws made by doo gooders that is choking us already I suggest that those in the beehive grow some balls and stamp out this behaviour. | Ken |
| I’m sure Donald Trump would agree. | Dennis |
| The term insulting is subjective and very much prone to misinterpretation and misconstruction and should never be used in the promulgation of law. That garbage dumped on Kevin Roberts is absolutely ridiculous. It is totally unacceptable for a bunch of maladjusted harpies to have legal support to a degree that they can shrill a man or woman out of their career. Absurd in the extreme. | Dianna |
| Just like the army offence of “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline” which can be used against any soldier for any purpose. | Don |
| A no brainer. | Frank |
| Bring back hanging. | Mike |
| Can be used by ANYONE for something VERY trivial. It’s a STUPID law that should NEVER have existed. | Cindy |
| To allow this to be part of a Act of Parliament is just another step towards taking away the right of free speech. Too many people are complaining about being “offended” by others and this needs to stop, especially from the Media drawing undue attention to it. Grow up those who can’t take it! | Donald |
| Toughen up and get over it. | Michelle |
| There can be no doubt about the need for this change. The title of the act itself needs to be changed to “Human Responsibilities Act.” and the whole thing recast in that light. | Martin |
| PC has gone too far. If a person chooses to be offended by another’s comments then it is their choice to be offended, not the choice of the “offender”. It is always the mind of the reader that is suspect not the mind of the author. | Nick |
| How ridiculous. PC has finally toppled over the edge. All of the recent cases mentioned by Dr. Newman illustrate the stupidity of the law and the way the pendulum has swung so far to the PC demands of the modern world. | Chris |
| At Last! | Robert |
| Time for removal has long gone! | Jim |
| No if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen get out. | Clark |
| The content of this week’s article, seems to me to have been the reason why Andy Haydn got dropped as being the NZ Ambassador for the Rugby World Cup. He said something that “offended” (though reasonably accurate) and was nailed for it! | Ted |
| Too PC we need to be able to disagree with such a stupid comments as those made by Leonie Pihama and Tom Hemopo. I totally support Alan Duff’s comments made in the NZ Herald this week that Maori need to take responsibility for their actions. | Kerry |
| Galloping PC madness. | Peger |
| Isn’t it twisted that advertisers are expected to lie and mislead, but when one of them says what he actually thinks he gets the boot?! i bet the board would have been quite happy for him to undervalue women; his crime was talking about it. Yes, we are becoming a muzzled society. | Jay |
| Less power to the truth haters. | David |
| It can’t be defined – nor can “racist”. If I say something against a Maori BECAUSE he is a Maori, that’s racist. However, if he says the same thing about me, a full-blooded European, then that’s not racist, of course? | Geoffrey |
| We are seeing the ever increasing spread of political correctness, which is being pushed by a certain section of our society for their own purposes. As a healthy society, we MUST retain the right of free speech. | Gifford |
| In the majority of cases the “insult” only appears to be an “insult” in the mind of the person being “insulted”. | Rog |
| Harden up. | Graeme |
| Leave insulting were it is, as long as it is used in the right way and has the meaning to mean what it says. Like Tom Hemopo is insulting the government for the high numbers of Maori in our jails. | Robert |
| You should be allowed to speak what you think if it offends some that is there problem as the person who is speaking is more than likely telling the truth, over the top comments need to be sound. | Geoff |
| What happened to good old kiwi commonsense? | Colleen |
| Harden up, and learn to live outside your cotton wool protection. You might enjoy the freedom! | Chris |
| People need to harden up. | Peter |
| We are already too politically correct. Lets be fair and honest. | Peter |
| Absolutely! | John |
| Sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS will never hurt me!! | Alan |
| Harden up. Robust debate is a necessary part of democracy. | Mark |
| We had an old saying as kids “Sticks & Stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you”. | Eric |
| The Human Rights Act is past its sell by date. As a formerly forthright nation we need to return being able to speak our minds or else we will all end up facing Mecca! | david |
| Your Article says it all Muriel, long live “Free Speech” I have a 100th year celebratory edition of Punch magazine celebrating the Victorian Era when the cartoon invented and Lampooning politicians and the ridiculous was an art form. We could do with some George Orwell essays now, to analyse our political shenanigans a la “inside the whale” etc. We are very short of leaders with a dross laden parliament and poor local government. We need more humour in life generally, less PC and more action on serious problems! Public Eye did this for a while. Churchill springs to mind with his “Action This Day” Seal. Where are our “Action People”? | David |
| Because it’s just another lenient of the PC agenda to suppress free speech. More and more we are told we are “not allowed to say that”! Rubbish! | Gordon |
| I agree that it should be removed. We are too PC these days and people are becoming too thin skinned. If I don’t like some one or something I must have the right to say so even if some people find it insulting. | Colin |
| Free speech must be encouraged to balance and refute the half truths and lies of the fanatics of this world. | Willy |
| It’s simply impossible to live your life without hurting or offending anyone. Even if you don’t mean to, you can’t control the way others process information. | Fiona |
| But should bloke have to wear a skirt to school when transgender? That’s for the next poll. | John |
| I will feel insulted if it is not. | Roderick |
| Another poisonous connotation designed to intimidate the individual. Are we now seeing the subjugation of the people as happened in Europe in the 1930’s? Free speech is the essence of a free society. | Colin |
| “Queer” means strange or unusual. Nothing more, nothing less. | Mark |
| Too broad and open to abuse. | Thomas |
| Political correctness has been and still is the ruination of this nation. I have been saying this for nearly 20 years and when Bryan Lochore said it publicly he got ridiculed when he was only saying what many of us were thinking. | Kevin |
| The idea of Insulting would of course be someone insulting someone in a public forum to belittle them. Some groups & there are many will twist this to suit themselves for things the law was not intended. | Nigel |
| If you took away PC it would be okay. | Colin |
| It is another example of PC rubbish. | Tom |
| We are gradually becoming a Dictatorship and most people don’t seem to realize it. Free speech is a must in this so called PC world. | Patricia |
| We are far too PC nowadays, it seems we can’t say anything without someone taking offence. | Kerin |
| There is far too much PC crap around. If one dares to critises another ethnic group they are racist etc. | Arthur |
| How many Gays is enough? I am totally sick of all this b****t being dished out as being offensive, for christ sake grow balls NZ! | RAY |
| I enjoy insulting people and they just laugh. | David |
| We are becoming controlled by faceless pricks in Parliament. I find the whole concept of the Nanny State Bloody Insulting. | Gary |
| I was Brought up with the saying “sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you” but with all this PC crap pushed onto us we are all screwed by that lot in parliament and yet they can do it without harm in parliament. | Richard |
| Human Rights Commission should be abolished. | Geoff |
| Keeps the loopies in their place. | John |
| Get real folks. | Richard |
| Need to restore free speech. | John |
| Free speech is important. | Elaine |
| Silliness perpetuated by a left wing group of immature so-called journalists. | Carolyn |
| Just too ridiculous for words. | Marie |
| Basic right of free speech! | chris |
| More political claptrap? | IAN |
| There’s no place for it. Feeling insulted or offended is not only highly subjective, but also a voluntary act; one can choose whether or not to be insulted or fell slighted. The law is supposed to be objective and fair, but once we surrender this principle to individual whim or caprice, we’re done for, because nothing is certain any more. | Graham |
| “… threatening, abusive or insulting…” all involve a subjective element, but this element increases from the first to the third. There is a readily identifiable objective component to ‘threatening’. Likewise for ‘abusive’, albeit less so. By the time we get to ‘insulting’ we have reduced the objective component to such as extent that I do not regard it as a legitimate inclusion in criminal law. | Barend |
| The perception of insult is exactly that a perception, an opinion held by the self acclaimed inflicted. I might be insulted by your very presence so that anything you might say only serves to confirm the insult This is not fact nor is it law, its opinion which has vague beginning and even vaguer end, it is ommon decency extrapolated by inflamed preciousness, propaganda masquerading as a legitimate right. The Concept of Insult in this context needs to be buried and the right of free speech exalted And just to make sure lets establish in law that one cannot abuse a Maori unless the said Maori is at least 66% full blooded Maori. 1% pretenders and propaganda activists do not qualify.. | Richard |
| At times humans are absurd creatures – live with it. God bless those who are sufficiently charged to point it out. | Jim |
| Why is every body so thin skinned now a days Things mentioned in your article such as Moari in prison we all make choices in life so if we make wrong choices then we pay the price as for the foot ballers that woman made her choice to get paid for stripping and in a group of drinking men what did she expect time to get real and don’t be insulted by every little thing that happens. | Russell |
| How much more P bluddy C can we get? Some people need to harden up. People have a right to free speech. | Sue |
| To retain is a nonsense. | Jeff |
| Quite frankly people in general need to harden up! | Maddi |
| Of course insulting should be removed. It can be quite easy to say something that may insult or hurt someone’s feelings. Then people say “I am offended by what you said”. Whether someone is offended by something I say is a “choice” that they make. So, when someone says they are offended by something, it is also their choice to not be offended by the same thing. All too often people say they are insulted or offended because they want to make a “scene” or want to have a reason to call people names like using the “racist” card. Then, in their (tiny) mind it gives justification to them having a little cry about it. So when I call someone a Dumb arse black, or heaven forbid a Dumb arse honkie, the end of the world has just arrived. The black or white reference just identifies the person, the Dumb arse describes the perceived behaviour. Be offended if you choose!!!!! | Neil |
| “Offence has to be taken before it an be given”!! | Robert |
| Yes. Too bad if people don’t share my opinions. I will defend my right to say them. The right of free speech has been too hardly earned to waste it on PC rubbish. | Sheila |
| Absolutely. | Roy |
| Too open to abuse. | Edward |
| No words should be removed. If someone wants to be insulted, they will be. | Phol |
| Yes, people get offended too easily these days. | John |
| Free speech is being compromised in this country – those opposing people speaking out are gaining traction. Anything that enables more freedom and fewer restrictions, should be pursued. | William |
| The Human Rights Commission should be abolished. | John |
| Yes, more freedom is what we need. The Human Rights Commission are having a massive chilling effect on this country. Their power needs to be reduced. | Tom |
| Free speech is definitely under attack in this country. The Human Rights Commission are always threatening to investigate people. Getting rid of “insulting” from the law would help. | Sarah |
| Good on Rowan Atkinson for standing up for free speech. People like him are a breath of fresh air. | Mike |