Why handicap language with political correctness? (letter)by Greg O'ReganNews Weekly
, September 4, 2010
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,