September 4th 2010


  Buy Issue 2835
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Labor's federal election debacle

EDITORIAL: A new deal for rural Australia?

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Can the independents agree on a policy agenda?

QUARANTINE: WTO rules in favour of NZ apples

NATIONAL SECURITY: Significance of Abu Bakar Bashir's arrest

CHINA I: Beijing's bid to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake

CHINA II: Do China's upheavals herald liberalisation?

ISLAM: What the West must demand of Muslims

NATIONAL MARRIAGE DAY: Why we need a renewed culture of natural marriage

OPINION: Choosing sex, the next great leap in selfish parenting

CHILDHOOD: Children at risk from internet pornography

EDUCATION: Seeking truth in the electronic age

POLITICAL FUNDING: Secular left's cynical use of religion

Population debate (letter)

Annual abortion tally (letter)

Why handicap language with political correctness? (letter)

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Financial recovery falters / Digital device over-use may cause brain fatigue / Young people not maturing to adulthood / US withdrawal from Iraq

BOOK REVIEW: BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas

Books promotion page
FONT SIZE:

Why handicap language with political correctness? (letter)


by Greg O'Regan

News Weekly, September 4, 2010
Sir,

By what right may people like David Brant from a disability organisation or federal Labor's disability spokesman Bill Shorten MP restrict free speech by objecting to words in common use?

Andrew Peacock's metaphor that those who could not see the faults of the Labor government must be "handicapped" (see The Australian, August 10), may have been influenced by his well-known predilection for horse-racing.

The context of his comment shows there was no intention to belittle persons with disabilities.

Anyway, Peacock is perfectly entitled to use the word "handicapped", just as other people should be entitled to express their views in debate to describe opponents as unintelligent or blind or short-sighted or deaf to their arguments.

Reactions like Brant's and Shorten's are precious and negative. Their objections are a kind of censorship and smack of an oppression which I am sure that Brant, for one, would not wish to impose upon the free thinking and expression of his fellow citizens.

Should the RSPCA react when reference is made to the donkey vote?

Greg O'Regan,
Farrer, ACT




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

COVER STORY Don't grieve dumped TPP; rather, thank Trump

ENVIRONMENT U.S. Congress to investigate shonky climate report

COVER STORY Money flows freely to fuel anti-coal campaign

ENVIRONMENT Ignore claims that Antarctic ice sheet will melt away

EDITORIAL What future has Senator Cory Bernardi?

EDITORIAL Commission report demonstrates old saying about statistics

ELECTRICITY Green policies threaten energy security and jobs



News and views from around the world

Scientists criticise "hottest year on record" hype (James Varney)

States, territories slash school funding by $100 million (Stephanie Balogh)

Confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (Stephen Mosher)

Rescuing Governor Ahok (Bob Lowry)

Future shock: What happens when robots take our jobs? (Adam Creighton)

President Trump: Protect religious freedom (Ryan Anderson)

China to crack down further on "cult" activities (Ben Blanchard)

Polish president rules out gay marriage (Radio Poland)

U.S. state legislatures sign 334 laws in five years to restrict abortion (Micaiah Bilger)

Clinton, Trump and the politics of the English language (Ben Reinhard)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am