It seems lately various Australian governments are on a mission to help out school bullies.

New ads, which the Victorian government hopes will be viewed on YouTube and other online forums before being spread across the internet, warn young drivers 'don't be a d1ckhead'.The adverts try to be "cool" by putting down minorities like redheads and emo's.

In one of the advertisements, a voice-over tells teenagers that every time they use mobile phones and drive, 'gingers get fresh with other gingers', while showing two redheads in bed.

Another ad says that using a mobile while driving will cause an 'emo' to be born.

Now I must be getting old, but I really think picking on red headed people is not something to be condoned or encouraged by a government. Let's not forget the speeding campaign mocking young men with small penises.

Now obviously advertising is outsourced and they're looking for free publicity, but surely this isn't the kind of message the government should be using.

You can be 'cool' and 'talk in the language of yoof' without spreading hatred for people based on their hair colour, music and clothing taste and penis size.

Red headed people are a minority, cant help their red hair, and should not be bullied by the government. Imagine the outrage if they picked on other race specific characteristics?

I'm sure emos get enough aggression from the jocks without the government condoning and encouraging it, and I'm sure a lot of kids are worried about their body image and whether they measure up.

What's fair in this war for attention and do you think you can teach young people respect while spreading hatred when it's convenient?

Anti-discrimination legislation clearly delineates the basis on which discrimination is unlawful.
This includes discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, race and sexual orientation.
As we all ought to know, these traits are immutable.

However:
Hair colour can be changed.
Emotionally deprived states can be chemically altered.
Penises can be enlarged.

Gingers should consider going blonde, brunette or mousy if they are bothered by these ads.
Emos should find some good uppers or seek psychiatric advice.
Men are oppressors and not victims so who cares if people laugh at their penis size?

In short, the system would break down if everybody was a victim.

Proxy

Gender can also be changed and Michael Jackson may have attempted to change his race. Does this mean that racism and sexism are now acceptable? There is a link between having an oversized amygdala and risk taking. Therefore, many dangerous drivers may have a brain deformity. Following your logic, we would need to send these off for a brain scan, before we could ask them to be more careful.

Houllie is right. Making some forms of discrimination acceptable makes it harder to complain about others.

H,
I agree with you. Although I didn't pay any attention to the ad.
I'll consider my self castigated for not waggling my pontificatorial finger at it.
:-(

Proxy,

'In short, the system would break down if everybody was a victim.'

Classic! I think it's well on the way though.

'Men are oppressors and not victims '
You sure you're not pynchme in disguise?

I don't think it matters whether it's technically discriminatory.
What kind of government lays sh1t on kids that are different to score points with the yoof and be 'cool'.

A sad pathetic hypocritical one in my opinion.

Next the government will be lamenting the lack of respect for others young people have. Followed by extra classes added to the curriculum at school.

BTW: If it was a comedienne laying sh1t on people that would be fine, but I prefer governments to make us laugh purely with their idiotic policies.

I think you've been pwned, Howler :D

An interesting and true observation you make Houilebecq, and it is interesting psychology that they reinforce the nanny state by putting down the points of difference in people.

Let's not have an original thought whilst we strive for the homogenous citizen. The scary bit is, that this discriminatory style of thinking is common among the young and the advertisers on this occasion claim to be speaking the language of the young and probably make this claim accurately.

I think Govt should draw the line clearly and not (as you say Houilebecq) spread hatred when its convenient, especially when claiming to be speaking to the recipient in their own language. It sort institutionalises the whole thought process e.g its okay to hate rangas as long as you don't break the speed limit.

I havent seen the ads yet Houliebecq so I'm probably speaking out of school again but thats because I cant bring myself to watch TV much any more anyway. Can you?

Can we now expect an epidemic of redheads weaving through traffic as they drive while talking on their mobile phones?

Yep- it's discrimination and should come under every bit of anti-discrimination legislation for advertising there currently is.

It's pretty sad that some people only dislike discrimination when given a specific subgroup which are 'off-limits', and can't take it at face value.

And 'red heads' are arguably an ethnic minority.

I haven't seen those adverts Houellebecq, but they sound awful!
Surely they could not be condoned by the Government?

If you were a redheaded Emo (before you dyed the hair black) guy, with a small penis, how bad would you feel?

I have seen several red-headed politicians over the past few years. Pauline Hanson springs to mind right away- and she certainly wouldn't like discrimination of any sort!

If we can't discriminate because of race or religion, then we can't because of hair colour, clothing or genital size either.

Semi-autonomous governmental bodies such as anti-discrimination and equal opportunity commissions should be set up with a sunset clause of a maximum of say six years.

Without having seen the Ads, it seems odd that some 'expert' in the government has agreed go down the path of pointing out possible 'targets'.

Imagine if you are an emo or a redhead and have had no issues and quite comfortable with your lot, no-one bothers you, and suddenly an Ad pops up and implies you are somewhow wanting or a possible target for bullies.

If anything this will make the subjects more a topic of ridicule and something to titter about.

Do these Ads actually work or make things worse? Or are they an excuse for some public servant to validate their jobs and for governments to be able to say...look at what we are doing about bullying.

Ads cannot 'teach' respect via an Ad campaign. Respect has to start from the home and then reinforced elsewhere (school, work) etc.

The adverts can be seen in the Age.

http://tinyurl.com/yapgop2

This is the Justification.

'Mr Pallas said young people used this kind of language and incorporating it was the best way to get the safety message across.

He denied the grand prix was at odds with this message and said young people were massively over-represented in the road toll, something he would not apologise for campaigning against.

''There's no point talking to people at a level they're not interested in,'' he said.

''Some of our [campaigns are] more about talking to ourselves on occasion than it is about making sure those messages are getting out to the community. This is the language they and their peers use.'''

Epic fail man!

BTW: Young people are more likely to use the term Rangas, as in Orangutan.

'Surely they could not be condoned by the Government?'

They're put out by the government.

The emo version seem's to be this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CBJr0GReI

We should all be fairly used to governments spreading hatred but that does not make it Ok.

R0bert

I like these quotes...

'"And to think Mr Brumby is a patron of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. You've just undone some great work people have been doing to reduce bullying. '

"Every time a D1ckhead designs a crap 30-second spot and some out-of-touch client actually buys it, a W@nker in advertising gets his wings,"

Sorry Houeliebecq but ranga's is the term for redheads used by the young people in my workplace. (Do Orangutans have red hair by any chance?). I was making an attempt at irony based upon my own experiences , an example of discriminatory thinking being popular among the young.

I agree with you that this type of message should not be part of our attempts to reduce the road toll. Govt should not participate in anything that popularises any sort of discriminatory thinking in anyone, particularly the young.

Bullies using the internet is the major concern because it is much more difficult for our children to deal with, than in the schoolyard. Why give them material and encouragement?

Got to be an April Fools Day prank, no government could be so so out of touch and arrogant as to foist tasteless rubbish like that onto the community. In the unlikely event that it is for real, a minister's head should roll.

It seems unfair to gang up on the rangas. Sometimes they can be just like people.

As for the Emos, they probably like the ads. Something else to wail about.

Lame jokes aside, frankly, I don't think government money should be spent on social engineering regardless of the delivery method. In relation to the content of the campaign, the red-headed people I know take the jibes in good humour, which is probably why it's still acceptable.

Everybody is well aware that redheads are no different to anybody else and making fun of them is more of a dig at racism in general than redheads. If however, redheaded people object to the ad then I guess it should be removed.

I won't take it seriously until red-headed people do.

Emos however, are fair game. If they want to whinge about the tragedy of what's usually a middle-class suburban lifestyle, then they're inviting criticism.

As I said however, I'd prefer the money spent on more tangible causes.