This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/make-sure-you-say-grub-how-offensive-language-can-get-you-locked-up
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Make sure you say 'grub': how offensive language can get you locked up | Make sure you say 'grub': how offensive language can get you locked up |
| (34 minutes later) | |
| Yesterday, thousands of university students and staff united to protest Coalition policies affecting university education. Some wore "Fuck Tony Abbott" T-shirts, which also made an appearance at last weekend’s March in May protests. One placard read: "Can you like for one second not be a fuckwit". Another stated: "Christopher Pyne: putting the 'N' in CUTS". | Yesterday, thousands of university students and staff united to protest Coalition policies affecting university education. Some wore "Fuck Tony Abbott" T-shirts, which also made an appearance at last weekend’s March in May protests. One placard read: "Can you like for one second not be a fuckwit". Another stated: "Christopher Pyne: putting the 'N' in CUTS". |
| Last week, Australians were asking whether education minister, Christopher Pyne, called opposition leader Bill Shorten the c-word in parliament. Pyne insisted he said "grub". And last month, media personality and Collingwood football club president, Eddie McGuire, used the dreaded word on live television. | |
| McGuire will not be fined for his "slip of the tongue". And Pyne will not be prosecuted for the alleged use of the c-word. But each year, thousands of Australians face hefty fines, and even imprisonment, for swearing. | McGuire will not be fined for his "slip of the tongue". And Pyne will not be prosecuted for the alleged use of the c-word. But each year, thousands of Australians face hefty fines, and even imprisonment, for swearing. |
| So when does the use of four-letter words attract criminal punishment? | So when does the use of four-letter words attract criminal punishment? |
| Laws across Australia criminalise the use of offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language in, or within hearing distance of, a public place. In Pyne’s home state of South Australia, the use of abusive or insulting language in public can warrant a fine of up to $1,250 or three months’ imprisonment. | Laws across Australia criminalise the use of offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language in, or within hearing distance of, a public place. In Pyne’s home state of South Australia, the use of abusive or insulting language in public can warrant a fine of up to $1,250 or three months’ imprisonment. |
| From 31 March this year, NSW police have been able to issue $500 on the spot fines for offensive language in public. On the spot fines can also be issued in Victoria and Queensland, and in those states, people caught using obscene or abusive words can receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment. | From 31 March this year, NSW police have been able to issue $500 on the spot fines for offensive language in public. On the spot fines can also be issued in Victoria and Queensland, and in those states, people caught using obscene or abusive words can receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment. |
| Offensive language charges are much more common than you'd think. They're often brought as part of the "trifecta" – offensive language, resist arrest, and assault police. Last year, NSW police recorded more than 4,000 offensive language incidents. | Offensive language charges are much more common than you'd think. They're often brought as part of the "trifecta" – offensive language, resist arrest, and assault police. Last year, NSW police recorded more than 4,000 offensive language incidents. |
| But how do police decide which words to pursue? The law gives police tremendous discretion, with the leading 1959 case Worcester v Smith defining offensive as: | But how do police decide which words to pursue? The law gives police tremendous discretion, with the leading 1959 case Worcester v Smith defining offensive as: |
| [S]uch as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person. | [S]uch as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person. |
| Context is crucial to determining whether language is offensive at law, but judges are not required by law to have any linguistic expertise. So while linguists Keith Allan and Kate Burridge remind us that "there is no such thing as an absolute taboo that holds for all worlds, times and contexts," judges can rely entirely on their own "common sense" in determining offensiveness. | Context is crucial to determining whether language is offensive at law, but judges are not required by law to have any linguistic expertise. So while linguists Keith Allan and Kate Burridge remind us that "there is no such thing as an absolute taboo that holds for all worlds, times and contexts," judges can rely entirely on their own "common sense" in determining offensiveness. |
| So how does a judge determine whether certain words, in certain spaces are offensive? Does it depend on the presence of children, women, families or the elderly? And does it matter if the words are uttered in a comedy performance, outside a pub, in a park or at a protest? | So how does a judge determine whether certain words, in certain spaces are offensive? Does it depend on the presence of children, women, families or the elderly? And does it matter if the words are uttered in a comedy performance, outside a pub, in a park or at a protest? |
| In offensive language cases, judges tend to rehash archaic stereotypes about language and place. An example of this is the NSW supreme court case of McCormack v Langham, where the court stated that: | In offensive language cases, judges tend to rehash archaic stereotypes about language and place. An example of this is the NSW supreme court case of McCormack v Langham, where the court stated that: |
| What might pass as inoffensive language if exchanged between footballers in an all male environment in a dressing room after a match might well offend if repeated in mixed company in a church fete. | What might pass as inoffensive language if exchanged between footballers in an all male environment in a dressing room after a match might well offend if repeated in mixed company in a church fete. |
| That was in 1991. In another case from the same year, we are informed that "conduct and language engaged in at a football match or on a tennis or squash court may be acceptable, or, at least, unremarkable, but offensive if engaged in during a church service or a formal social event." | That was in 1991. In another case from the same year, we are informed that "conduct and language engaged in at a football match or on a tennis or squash court may be acceptable, or, at least, unremarkable, but offensive if engaged in during a church service or a formal social event." |
| In a more recent Queensland case, a disoriented, intoxicated, homeless Indigenous woman, served seven days in prison after being convicted of using insulting words in public. She had said "you fucking cunt", to a female police officer at 4am in inner-city Brisbane. When the case reached the high court in 2004, one high court judge, contemplating the insulting nature of the word, suggested: | In a more recent Queensland case, a disoriented, intoxicated, homeless Indigenous woman, served seven days in prison after being convicted of using insulting words in public. She had said "you fucking cunt", to a female police officer at 4am in inner-city Brisbane. When the case reached the high court in 2004, one high court judge, contemplating the insulting nature of the word, suggested: |
| [D]espite equal opportunity, perhaps even today the fact that those words were said to a woman might provoke a physical response on the part of men who were also present. | [D]espite equal opportunity, perhaps even today the fact that those words were said to a woman might provoke a physical response on the part of men who were also present. |
| These statements suggest that swearing is, or should be a male activity. Women need men to protect them from the c word – even with physical violence. | These statements suggest that swearing is, or should be a male activity. Women need men to protect them from the c word – even with physical violence. |
| Historically the football field, sporting events, political meetings, and the pub, were conceived of as masculine spaces in Australian society; spaces where females should not intervene, and displays of femininity were perceived of as weak. They were dirty spaces, where dirty people could use dirty words. | Historically the football field, sporting events, political meetings, and the pub, were conceived of as masculine spaces in Australian society; spaces where females should not intervene, and displays of femininity were perceived of as weak. They were dirty spaces, where dirty people could use dirty words. |
| But as psycho-linguist Timothy Jay points out, swearing is both an ancient and ubiquitous practice. Almost all English speakers swear frequently throughout their lifetimes, albeit with different words and to varying degrees. | But as psycho-linguist Timothy Jay points out, swearing is both an ancient and ubiquitous practice. Almost all English speakers swear frequently throughout their lifetimes, albeit with different words and to varying degrees. |
| A civilised society should question laws that entrench outmoded gender stereotypes, and promote imagined ideas about dirty words in dirty places. We should query the logic of laws that see a homeless Indigenous woman imprisoned for using the c-word but overlooks the use of the same language on our television screens when uttered by a white, wealthy man. | A civilised society should question laws that entrench outmoded gender stereotypes, and promote imagined ideas about dirty words in dirty places. We should query the logic of laws that see a homeless Indigenous woman imprisoned for using the c-word but overlooks the use of the same language on our television screens when uttered by a white, wealthy man. |
| If offensive language crimes cannot be evenly applied, should they continue to exist on our statute books? | If offensive language crimes cannot be evenly applied, should they continue to exist on our statute books? |