Australian judge rules 'N-word' not offensive

[The Overfiend]

    * Judge rules "N-word" not offensive
    * Man argued it was "everyday language"
    * Bligh said term is highly offensive

A QUEENSLAND judge has found the terms "nigger" and "sandnigger" are not offensive to a reasonable person.

Magistrate Michael O'Driscoll made the ruling yesterday when he dismissed a case against a Gold Coast retiree charged with sending an offensive facsimile to a local politician, the Gold Coast Bulletin reported .

Denis Mulheron, 62, sent the fax to the office of Queensland lawmaker Peta-Kaye Croft on June 30 last year.

It called on the Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against "niggers" and "sandnigger terrorists", and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/judge-rules-n-word-not-offensive/story-e6frfkvr-1225903563377#ixzz0wUY0J76I

Staff member Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was deeply offended when she read the one-page document, which also made reference to indigenous Australians as "Abos".

Mr Mulheron, from the Gold Coast suburb of Labrador, told the court he had grown up with the slang terms for Arabs and black Africans and did not believe they were offensive.

"I'm not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set ... to me that is everyday language," he said.

He argued in court they were no different to calling a New Zealander a "Kiwi" or an American a "Yank".

Mr O'Driscoll ruled that Mr Mulheron's words were not enough to invoke criminal sanctions.

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

But he made it clear the court in no way condoned Mr Mulheron's comments.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said the use of the term "nigger" is highly offensive and has no place in modern Australia.

The case comes after a judge in the Queensland city of Townsville ruled last Thursday that it was acceptable for people to tell police officers to "f*** off".

Townsville judge Peter Smid threw out a case against Bardon Kaitira, 28, who swore at a female officer outside a nightclub on December 20 last year in the early hours of the morning.

Judge Smid said: "The defendant spoke normally, he had his hands in his pockets and walked away. It's not the most polite way of speaking but those who walk the beat would be quiet immune to the words."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/judge-rules-n-word-not-offensive/story-e6frfkvr-1225903563377#ixzz0wUY4yHyF

[Blasphemy]

"I'm not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set ... to me that is everyday language," he said.

I couldn't stop laughing after reaching this point.

[Fraxxx]

"I'm not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set ... to me that is everyday language," he said.

I couldn't stop laughing after reaching this point.

This one got me too.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

How do u make a ruling on what is "offensive" to someone else?

[The Overfiend]

^ The judge makes a ruling based on the legal hypothetical concept of the 'reasonable person'. This is an ever changing concept, and judges are suppose to use current attitudes in society to guide them in forming an idea of what the 'reasonable person' would do. In murder trials this is usually left to the jury, as they are suppose to reflect a more accurate idea of the type of people that compose  society and therefore a closer idea of the average 'reasonable person'.



What this means is that the law is, or should be, always changing with society, for better or worse.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

^ The judge makes a ruling based on the legal hypothetical concept of the 'reasonable person'. This is an ever changing concept, and judges are suppose to use current attitudes in society to guide them in forming an idea of what the 'reasonable person' would do. In murder trials this is usually left to the jury, as they are suppose to reflect a more accurate idea of the type of people that compose  society and therefore a closer idea of the average 'reasonable person'.

What this means is that the law is, or should be, always changing with society, for better or worse.

I understand the idea. What Im saying is, it is impossible to tell anyone else what they should or should not be offended by. Everyone has different personal experiences. Something that could completely offend you...might not offend me. Which one of us is that make-believed "reasonably person"? Chances are we are both reasonable and both offended by different things.

[Sikotic™]

A "reasonable person" as in, someone who is not of color?

LOL. The ruling itself is offensive.

[StrEiht Up Menace]

aussies arent educated on any other culture but whites. They need to broaden their minds, because we all know its the most racist country full of idiots like this judge

[The Overfiend]

^ The judge makes a ruling based on the legal hypothetical concept of the 'reasonable person'. This is an ever changing concept, and judges are suppose to use current attitudes in society to guide them in forming an idea of what the 'reasonable person' would do. In murder trials this is usually left to the jury, as they are suppose to reflect a more accurate idea of the type of people that compose  society and therefore a closer idea of the average 'reasonable person'.

What this means is that the law is, or should be, always changing with society, for better or worse.

I understand the idea. What Im saying is, it is impossible to tell anyone else what they should or should not be offended by. Everyone has different personal experiences. Something that could completely offend you...might not offend me. Which one of us is that make-believed "reasonably person"? Chances are we are both reasonable and both offended by different things.

Of course, everybody is an individual and what is offensive is subjectively determined, however the reasonable person test is suppose to reflect what the majority of society feels on a particular issue. You or I may not find certain behaviour offensive, although society at large may disagree. For the sake of social cohesion the courts employ the reasonable person test.

[The Overfiend]

Another thing, I'm not defending the ruling, I'm just trying to explain what the judge is suppose to do, something he has not done because Australians find usage of the word offensive.

[The Overfiend]

'Nigger' slur offensive: Bligh


QUEENSLAND PREMIER Anna Bligh has taken issue with a Gold Coast magistrate who ruled the term ''nigger'' was not offensive and suggested his views are ''last century''.

Ms Bligh also says Queensland's racial vilification laws may need looking at at in light of the ruling.

Southport magistrate Michael O'Driscoll on Monday threw out a charge against a Gold Coast man charged with sending an offensive fax to local Labor MP Peta Kaye-Croft's office.

In the fax, 62-year-old Denis Mulheron called on the ALP to tighten immigration laws against 'niggers' and ''sandnigger terrorists''. He also described indigenous Australians as ''Abos''.

Mr Mulheron argued he was was using ''everyday English'' but Ms Kaye-Croft's electorate officer, who received the fax, said she was disturbed and offended.

However, Mr O'Driscoll ruled that Mr Mulheron's words were ''crude, unattractive and direct ... but were not offensive to a reasonable person''.



Ms Bligh, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday to announce Queensland had secured three-year hosting rights for the NRL's Indigenous All-Stars match, said she found ''nigger'' to be a ''highly offensive'' word.

"I think most Australians would find that kind of language highly offensive. I certainly find it highly offensive,'' she said.

"They're the sort of words that I don't think have any place in modern Australia. They're not the sort of words I hear most reasonable people using.

"Most reasonable Australians would find it not only offensive but a part of the last century.''

Ms Bligh said while she had her 'own views' on Mr Mulheron's language, it may not have met the standard of proof required by the courts.

"The test is, from the courts, whether they think this would meet (the views of) the reasonable person in the street,'' she said.

"There'll always be a difference of opinion about what that might be.''

Mr Mulheron was charged with using a carriage service, namely a fax machine, to menace, harass or offend - an offence which carries up to three years' jail.

The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act says serious racial vilification is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of a $7000 fine or six months' jail.

Asked whether Queensland's racial vilification laws needed changing, Ms Bligh said she would need to seek legal advice.

But she believed the laws were as ''as strong as anything in the country''.

[KrazySumwhat]

aussies arent educated on any other culture but whites. They need to broaden their minds, because we all know its the most racist country full of idiots like this judge

 What ever mate, you are very very wrong. i aint gonna bother saying much more than that. Think what you will.

[Blasphemy]

aussies arent educated on any other culture but whites. They need to broaden their minds, because we all know its the most racist country full of idiots like this judge

 What ever mate, you are very very wrong. i aint gonna bother saying much more than that. Think what you will.

Well he's Sorta Right, but people gotta Remember the Culture Stigma there is different. Stuff considered Racist here, might not be considered there and Vice Versa. I mean look at when a Japanese Company makes a Black person in there cartoons. It's always the Old Racial 1, were the character is looking like mr. Popo from Dragon Ball Z.

^ 4 those who never saw the show as a kid.