Freedom of speech must of necessity, include a right to offend!
In some cultures, inoffensively remarking, that your wife is quite a looker, is unpardonable offence!
I don't know if Nicola has a big bum or not, never been very interested in the rear part of a woman's anatomy.
However, I might notice if she was so fat, her hubby had to roll her in flour and then look for a wet spot, before he could make love to her.
In some cultures that risqué humour, would be responded to, with a death sentence; and or, ritual beheading.
We need a bill of irrevocable rights, just so, the control freaks can't, with their hands on the levers of power, rob us of a right to unintentionally offend.
We already have enough laws to effectively control/remediate, intended racial vilification and libel!
Just ask Andrew Bolt, who all too often, just seems to open his mouth, to simply change socks.
Another, the P.M's partner, is also quite capable of politically incorrect remarks, just because he's a bloke?
Had the same remark been utter by a small Asian female doctor, would any of our female members been offended, or just twittered their embarrassment?
Personally, I find the digital rectal examination extremely unpleasant or even quite painful, and moreover, notoriously unreliable, and often quite capable of missing some very nasty tumours!
The annual check-up and PSA score, I believe, is usually a better indicator, and if high, I believe, ought to be followed, with a CAT scan or MIR.
Rhrosty.

“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”-Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator.

So the Labor party consider this amendment to be progressive in spite of the Canadian experience with the misuse of "Human rights"laws and the utterly corrupt cottage industry of professional "Hatefinders" and snitches which arose as a result?
You can imagine all the would be Richard Warmans and Dean Steacys warming up their poison pens and rubbing their hands with glee.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act/

Do we want a society of selfish, thick sculled Mr Teflons or would we rather people feel something when someone tries their darnest to offend and reduce our lot to less than theirs? Might feeling, understanding people be substantially nicer to other people, easier to get on with and more likely to contribute to the harmony of society than our mean spirited author? Of course! So why would we want to remove the need for respect and dignity?

This issue really comes down to power - the comfortable white guy in relative privilege, safely home amongst the majority on every front can afford to be Teflon and shrug off offending jibs. If you have grown up as scum of the earth because you are a minority, it could be a nail in their coffin or mine - and as a gay man living with disabilities I am sick and tired of people who do not have an ounce of feeling and don't care if we commit suicide at vastly greater rates because they and their lot are just fine. Take transgender people where the suicide rate is estimated to be close to 50%. Feeling so ashamed is the opposite of hope. Imagine being told every day you don't deserve to belong to humanity because you are a minority of a minority.

Put some evidence into the argument and tell us what alternatively could be done to stop people killing themselves if we make offence de rigueur but remember the solution must serve everybody as well as it does you - it must serve humanity, unlike not feeling offended.

Actually there's some good comments on the article in that link, they talk about the de normalisation and de legitimisation of the fake human rights laws and fake human rights groups. I always like to point out the long list of human rights groups and professional human rights activists in Australia and the total absence of any groups or individuals dedicated to the abolition of human rights.

Eric,
It's probably futile to point out to you that it's a universally accepted principle that nobody but the deceased party is responsible for suicide, if Gays and Transgendered people are killing themselves at higher rates than we'd otherwise expect then that might tell you something about Gays and Trans rather than other members of society.
What's more if 50% of Trans are killing themselves in this day and age then that's a massive black mark against the "Human Rights" industry, you've failed them, no matter how many laws they pass the state can't protect people from themselves or the actions of others,this amendment will have zero effect on suicide rates.
Seriously is this where the battle lines are going to be drawn in the next election, "Gay rights"? This is truly a pathetic society.

Jay Of Melbourne. Well spoken that man.

"We already have enough laws to effectively control/remediate, intended racial vilification and libel!". Says it all really.

Good article. We always have a choice as to how we feel/ react/respond to any situation, otherwise we are no more grown up than a 2 year olds. To suggest otherwise I regard as quite offensive.