Gay rights campaigner loses Footy Show case

[Sam I Am]

By the way, I posted the above legislation with respect to the Cronulla on-field comment.

The Footy Show comment would be covered by State, not Federal legislation. (The Federal Government is able to legislate with respect to racial discrimination by virtue of s 51(xxvi) of the Constitution: the race power.)

I don't know the NSW legislation as well, but I expect their Act is analogous to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1994 (Qld). The pertinent section is 119 which defines sexual harassment as "make(ing) a remark with sexual connotations relating to the other person... in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct".

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/s119.html

 

[Sam I Am]

Which f**ked up Mediterranean Descendant wrote this shyte?

Australian law. If you don't like it, leave!

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

By the way, I posted the above legislation with respect to the Cronulla on-field comment.

The Footy Show comment would be covered by State, not Federal legislation. (The Federal Government is able to legislate with respect to racial discrimination by virtue of s 51(xxvi) of the Constitution: the race power.)

I don't know the NSW legislation as well, but I expect their Act is analogous to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1994 (Qld). The pertinent section is 119 which defines sexual harassment as "make(ing) a remark with sexual connotations relating to the other person... in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct".

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/s119.html

Bold sections proves my point.

If the footy show pretend and say they were not wishing to offend anyone, I dont think they will convince anyone. Their whole joke ethos is to be on the edge of offence - except this time they went over. They pick on non-mainstream groups of people. They are incriminating themselves all the time on this. They wanted to humiliate gays - its what makes the skit 'funny' to its target audience - the average suburban middle class person.

 

[Iafeta]

It was stupid and offensive. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. They can't really argue that it was naivity since the whole skit was basically a Johns ego boost and a crack at gay guy generalisations. It's probably fine except for the "hand this one back, there's something wrong with him" comment - that part can easily be construed as an attempt to demean gay men.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Australian law. If you don't like it, leave!

Think I'll stay if that s ok. Might try & get that stupid law repealed .
What sort of society will you create if there are no minorities to tease?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

It was stupid and offensive. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. They can't really argue that it was naivity since the whole skit was basically a Johns ego boost and a crack at gay guy generalisations. It's probably fine except for the "hand this one back, there's something wrong with him" comment - that part can easily be construed as an attempt to demean gay men.

There was something wrong him . He wasnt going to produce grand children. He was a dud.

 

[Sam I Am]

Think I'll stay if that s ok. Might try & get that stupid law repealed .
What sort of society will you create if there are no minorities to tease?

It is your democratic right to attempt to have a law repealed, whether by lobbying your local Federal member or attempting to join Parliament yourself.

Please be aware in the mean time that it is unlawful to incite people to commit an offence under the Racial Discrimination Act, which you would arguably be doing if you encouraged them to tease minorities.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 17

Unlawful to incite doing of unlawful acts

It is unlawful for a person:
(a) to incite the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of this Part; or
(b) to assist or promote whether by financial assistance or otherwise the doing of such an act.

I am sure that as a good Australian your wouldn't break Australian law.

 

[Sam I Am]

There was something wrong him . He wasnt going to produce grand children. He was a dud.

Might I counsel you that this comment comes close to breaking the law?

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

It was stupid and offensive. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. They can't really argue that it was naivity since the whole skit was basically a Johns ego boost and a crack at gay guy generalisations. It's probably fine except for the "hand this one back, there's something wrong with him" comment - that part can easily be construed as an attempt to demean gay men.

I tend to agree with you. But you are not the one being offended, unless you are gay and took offence. And you dont sound like you are gay and took offence.

Thats the whole thing about this. The 'being offended' here is all subjective. And its irresponsible to allow a tv show to go on like this on tv. Someone should be held responsible.

I dont agree with the 'construed as an attempt to demean gay men' part. The line was completely demeaning.

It reminds me of the sexist jokes levelled at women from 60's and 70's comedy shows from britain. ch 7 showed a few a while back. Some of the jokes were really funny but they were obviously sexist and intended to be sexist - but thats because that was the way back then...it was a show written perfectly for the audience - ordinary men (were just happened to be sexist like most men were back then [what we consider sexist now im sure no one considered them sexist]

Today if they were shown in prime time, there would be huge outcry and controversy.

The footy show mentality too is behind the times. It needs a new culture and face lift. Or it needs to get off air. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour in 2009.

Obviously there is a remnant of that 'old thinking' left in society today and ch9 knows this....but to let it continue on tv is irresponsible and cases like the one currently going on are going to continue to come at the footy show if they act like they do. And one day, one is going to stick.

For mine.....i say change it now before they do get charged.

 

[Sam I Am]

Think I'll stay if that s ok. Might try & get that stupid law repealed .

As an aside, it is interesting to note that those who supported the Cronulla rioters cited, among things, the lack of respect for the law exhibited by one ethnic group.

http://www.australian-news.net/Cronulla_riots.htm

If the media had done their job they would have exposed the looming problem with Lebanese lack of respect for law and order months or even years ago and perhaps avoided Sunday's confrontation.

Ironically, here we have a Cronulla supporter calling Australian law "stupid"! I hope nobody riots against you, blacktip-reefy! :lol:

 

[Billythekid]

I tend to agree with you. But you are not the one being offended, unless you are gay and took offence. And you dont sound like you are gay and took offence.

Thats the whole thing about this. The 'being offended' here is all subjective. And its irresponsible to allow a tv show to go on like this on tv. Someone should be held responsible.

I dont agree with the 'construed as an attempt to demean gay men' part. The line was completely demeaning.

It reminds me of the sexist jokes levelled at women from 60's and 70's comedy shows from britain. ch 7 showed a few a while back. Some of the jokes were really funny but they were obviously sexist and intended to be sexist - but thats because that was the way back then...it was a show written perfectly for the audience - ordinary men (were just happened to be sexist like most men were back then [what we consider sexist now im sure no one considered them sexist]

Today if they were shown in prime time, there would be huge outcry and controversy.

The footy show mentality too is behind the times. It needs a new culture and face lift. Or it needs to get off air. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour in 2009.

It's rating so damn bad that it must surely be on it's last legs anyway?

 

[Apey]

Wow check out the big names on this page.. Reefy, Sam, Billythekid, Poor Boy Blues..

The 'thinkers' of LU.

 

[ramble_on]

Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, but you just gargled.

You would be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle. Hey, fatty....:roll:

Yep... about the level of response expected....

btw, are you saying that the average middle aged suburban person is sexist or homophobic? f**king hypocritical tool......

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Might I counsel you that this comment comes close to breaking the law?

Close enough is not good enough, as they say?

 

[Sam I Am]

Close enough is not good enough, as they say?

I'm not used to hearing that phrase so I will have to take your word for it.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I'm not used to hearing that phrase so I will have to take your word for it.

That doesnt surprise me, Its a phrase used by hard arrss politically incorrect go get em people.
It is not something used by whingers who sit around writing & quoting laws for the "victimised"
The phrase that people like yourself use is "close enough is good enough"
Often heard in rugby union circles in regards to forward passes.

 

[Sam I Am]

That doesnt surprise me, Its a phrase used by hard arrss politically incorrect go get em people.
It is not something used by whingers who sit around writing & quoting laws for the "victimised"
The phrase that people like yourself use is "close enough is good enough"
Often heard in rugby union circles in regards to forward passes.

You're in a confused and incoherent mood today. Must be the alcohol you keep referring to. On one hand you say that people like me a sticklers for the law, then in the next sentence you say that people like me don't care for rules.

Must be a mess inside your head.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

On one hand you say that people like me a sticklers for the law, then in the next sentence you say that people like me don't care for rules..

I said no such things.

 

[Sam I Am]

I said no such things.

Really?

1. Stickler for the law: "It is not something used by whingers who sit around writing & quoting laws..."
2. Not caring about rules: "The phrase that people like yourself use is 'close enough is good enough'. Often heard in rugby union circles in regards to forward passes."
   1. ie. There is a rule about forward passes. People "like yourself" are like those who don't strictly care for this rule.

It is only a couple of posts ago that you wrote that. Go have another drink.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Really?

1. Stickler for the law: "It is not something used by whingers who sit around writing & quoting laws..."
2. Not caring about rules: "The phrase that people like yourself use is 'close enough is good enough'. Often heard in rugby union circles in regards to forward passes."
   1. ie. There is a rule about forward passes. People "like yourself" are like those who don't strictly care for this rule.

It is only a couple of posts ago that you wrote that. Go have another drink.

ohh i see the twist you put on it. Well done. Zing Zing.
Not what I meant, but why bother arguing the point with somebody that prefers the soft option. Soft is soft & legislation is designed to protect the weak.