The Pickering Post
Thursday, 23rd November 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


WOGS, CHINKS, ABOS AND WHITIES

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



Greens and Labor’s Left dream of the perfect egalitarian PC world where no-one is offended by anything and everyone sleeps in the same conjugal bed. Well, that’s not the way it works, fellas, and it’s you lot 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 “whitie c...” less racially offensive than, “boong”? Is “gwailo” (white ghost) more racially offensive than “chink”? Is “wog” racially offensive to a southern European when he refers to himself as a wog?

The terms, “Pom”, “Kiwi”, “Newfie”, “Yank”, “Jap”, “Coon”, “Abo”, “Chink”, “Wetback”, “Fuzzy Wuzzy”, “Raghead” 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 one’s legitimate or feigned degree of offence.

In the 1970s Labor tried to outlaw the term “Wog”, but unfortunately “Pom” and “Kiwi” were caught in the same legislative net, it was duly ignored.

Let’s 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.

I have been forced to drink my beer in a "Whitie" section but you can bet the reverse would be unacceptable.

The current law is malleable, interpretive and requires racial discrimination by the courts themselves in order to enforce it. 

PM Abbott’s proposed changes to current legislation will place "free speech" above what an individual might perceive as “offensive”. And "free speech" should win that battle every time. 

Andrew Bolt was legally vilified for discussing “white Aborigines” 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, it’s 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!

But “Knights and Dames”, Tony?... WTF? That certainly shoves it right up Malcolm Turnbull but surely there are better diversions from the main game than that sort of garbage!



Comments

My surname is CLAYTON, now I am offended when things are referred to a CLAYTONS which is used quite regularly by politicians and the press in a derogatory way, usually meaning useless. Who Do I complain to or better still sue?

Former Labor Minister Barry Cohen, himself Jewish, says the Racial Discrimination Act is a dangerous limitation on free speech:
Much of our legislation is designed to shut people up instead of widening the debate and have important issues placed under public scrutiny. No better example exists than the definition of who is an Aborigine. I have never witnessed a debate where people are as terrified of stating their views. Ask Andrew Bolt. Almost anything one says can be branded as racist.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Well said.

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html#Pu9lLDTPPTiyH0SS.99

It is unfortunate that many posters are linking free speech to criticism of what they perceive as benefits to aboriginality. Free speech however is a responsibility of a democratic society as a means to improve that society especially in terms of economic well being and social harmony. Criticism of any specific group based on misinformation is not exercising free speech because it would be difficult to see how there can be any positive outcome. It is an attempt at vilification of a group, not altogether different to anti -Semitism and is largely negative in nature. this is not to suggest any group can't be criticised but this needs to be objective in nature and lead to some outcome that will be beneficial to all. This may even mean we exclude some groups from migrating to Australia. .

W T F ??

Bigotry is a belief, although a person's actions may be a symptom of this belief. We don't legislate on what religion a person can believe in, or if homosexuality is wrong, or what politics you believe in. The best way to deal with this sort of stuff is to have it out in public where it can be discussed, humiliated or refuted. Make it illegal and it gets driven underground where, given time, it may fester into something which leads to more serious consequences. Offending someone is to challenge their beliefs. To libel or defame someone is to cause harm to their character. We have laws because the majority of society want protection from a person's actions which may cause harm. Plenty of laws have been challenged by society when a minority feel they know better.

No problem, so long as you don't express racism and bigotry. Just rant and rave to your dog each day.

Gough Whitlam is a knight - a fucking French knight. No one seems to complain that that big turd is one ( a knight).

Why not? It is a free country.

Imagine if a group of Abos, claim to be English and then take the ABC to court for using the term Pom. What a laugh that would be.

We are going to need free speech sometime in the future when the Muslims become strong enough here to throw their weight around.If we can't speak out against what they are doing, you can say goodbye to our beautiful Australia as we know it.annie

This appeared on The Two Ronnies years ago.

I read it very carefully out loud. and got it venividi M N X 4 2

Hey FF.....what do you do when negative comments about individuals, or groups are necessary as a way of political or social change...no one in the marxist paradise of Cambodia publically criticised Pol Pot....no one in North Korea criticises their leader, no one in present day Rhodesia criticises Mugabe ....criticism with strong words has always been a tool used by the oppressed on the way to freedom.....in many cases individuals and groups are fully worthy of being "vilified"....especially the villains.....

Fully concur with the need for free speech and there should be no issue that free speech may insult, offend and humiliate others. However we do need to strengthen what to vilify or to incite involves. Statements by Bolt are very much in the category of vilifying and inciting. We need very strong penalties for irresponsible utterances by people like Bolt such as a long prison term or exile for people like Bolt who are not real Australians anyway.

Knew one of the stolen generation in a children's home who insisted he should not be there he was white and into adulthood still insisted he was white but when there was money to be aboriginal held a senior position in the Aboriginal Legal Service and claimed his aboriginal culture.

If you want to see how far individuals posing as being aboriginal can advance their objectives go no further than Parkes in the NSW Central West. Some seven percent of its population claim to be indigenous, despite the last genuine aborigines disappearing from the district in the late 1870s. But that small detail doesn't prevent the shire council, urged on by its resident "doctor's wife", Barbara Newton, from pandering to every item on the seven percenters wish list. You name it, they get it. The remarkable thing is the district is a National party stronghold and its people not in the least receptive to what have become the council's leftist social experiments. The problem is that the folk here hold the council in such low regard that in effect it flys under the radar

Chin chin,cjeers evryone.

All you need for to be Aboriginalis to say it on govenment forms and ya get affirmative action advantage, getoff fines and the coppers let ya go. Its easy, just telneveryone your'N Abo and its easy peezy:-)