That " Three Strikes " Law !

One subject that will definitely end in argument is any attempt to impose limitations on what we are permitted to say in public.  " Freedom of speech " is a hallowed Australian right in the opinion of most people and perhaps the rules that apply in the national parliament might be applicable as a general rule.

It is up to the house speaker to determine what terms are " unparliamenary " and so order them to be withdrawn.  As a result, a vocabulary of words that fall on either side of this deciding line are either used or avoided in debate.   It seems that it is permissible to call someone on the opposite bench a " Boofhead "  but terms such as " scab " , " rat " or " turncoat " will bring a reprimand.  A member who refuses to withdraw or apologise may be suspended from the house for a day.

Of course, what happens when an insulting remark is made usually depends on where the exchange occurred.   A shouting match between neighbours in the suburbs is unlikely to go further, but public statements in the business world and in particular, heated exchanges in council chambers or other forms of local government are more sensitive.

It seems that just such a remark made in anger has resulted in the deputy mayor of a country council being removed from office for a five year period. He was convicted by the NSW Civic and Administrative Tribunal of calling the council mayor " a bitch " and adding " I hope you choke on your sandwich " during a heated council debate.

The actual suspension for this offence was for five months, but this deputy mayor had form for several previous similar offences and under the " three strikes " law that applied he was barred from serving in office for a five year period.

To further complicate the matter, it seems that a recording was made of this exchange.  There are laws that apply to the recording of conversations and the need for permission and it was claimed that these should not have been permitted as evidence, which was something the tribunal ignored.

The outcome would probably have been different had that deputy mayor been prepared to withdraw the remark and apologise, but he was unrepentant and it seems that this caused the tribunal to make an example of him.

This hearing and the end result has established a precedent on which future claims are likely to be settled.  Boundaries have now been set and the users of colourful language need to be aware of the limitations that apply, and be prepared to back off and apologise where reasonable offense is taken.

That will not satisfy those who think freedom of speech is absolute, but there have always been limitations.   It was once famously claimed that freedom of speech did not apply when someone maliciously shouted " Fire "in a crowded theatre and set in motion a panic which crushed patrons to death.

It seems that predictable rules now apply !