I agree with Cath Gunn. P.C. has just lead to a proliferation of weasel words. So we can't say e.g.children fail because they are not intelligent, somebody was fired because they stuffed up completely, the army got it badly wrong and killed 40 civilians, some soldiers are dangerous psychopaths, some teachers are totally incompetent, some nurses and doctors are sadistic, DOCS is so underfunded that it's barely worthwhile reporting child abuse to them any more, if bird flu hits we are so underresourced in our hospitals that a few million will die, Singapore is practically a police state and executes people, Australian mining companies are despoiling Africa and New Guinea, Universities are so short of funds they go on passing foreign students despite atrocious results because the Unis need their money, the US is a brutal nation which has killed a zillion times more innocent civilians than 9/11 did, Child Care Centres are understaffed and for profit ones even more so. and children get bad care in them, and whistleblowers are treated like scum. ETC.

Political Correctness was spawned from the same creatures that gave us "affirmative action" and screamed out for equal rights for minorities. What's the point of being in the majority then?
PC is the religion of the loony Left and is destroying free speech as well as our language with all the "Newspeak" words and terms. 1984 was late but it's here now.

Depends which version of political correctness you're talking about.

There was the late 80s, early 90s version where a manhole had to be called a personhole and vilification of people for a variety of reasons, some farcicle, was frowned upon. Calling short people 'vertically challenged' is clearly ridiculous, but 'visually impaired' allows that there are degrees of blindness.

The mid 90s to 2006 version of PC is the one where a manhole is a manhole and anyone who objects is a sissy. It also dictates that anyone who talks about problems with the status quo is a rabid, lunatic conspiracy theorist. It is ok to point and laugh at short people and if you have vision problems it's nobody's fault but your own.

Both kinds are extreme and unhelpful, and both kinds are about excluding the other from public debate.

Free speech is being stifled by Mr Costello's plan to give the ACCC the powers to do big businesses' dirty work for them.

He plans to have the ACCC sue activists who may publicly speak out about an industry's unethical practices.

It appears that he is sabotaging the judicial system which already has defamation laws in place for those who are simply vindictive or maliciously lying.

However, activists who speak out in a truthful manner, resulting in potential loss of profits for an industry, will soon find themselves in court having to feel the might of a government agency representing many of the big boys who are only tolerant of free speech if it's paid for.

What better way to stifle protests and information, by intimidating protesters with the threat of expensive litigation.

Activists in Australia generally can ill-afford to go to court to defend themselves. If not for these activists, whose main endeavour is to empower the public to make informed decisions, we would remain in the dark over many environmental and trade malpractices.

A recent example was the long-term, disgraceful lead contamination of the community in Esperance WA, where, had it not been for a citizen reporting the deaths of thousands of birds, this community would still be in the dark and their health would have been even more compromised from unregulated and unethical industrial practices.

Ignorance in communities is not bliss and free societies should be more tolerant of protesters who generally are well researched and sufficiently courageous to take on those who care only about fat profits. Many of these protesters are well-educated and sufficiently qualified to speak up.

So, be warned, those in public disagreement with Mr Costello and the big end of town, may consider that political correctness is the only safe way to go. This forcing of political correctness will encourage governments and their close associates to further wallow in their own self-interests - a result of an ill-informed and naive public.

mmm having started this thread...what about the reports in the Australian this weekend that a commissioned book for children was withdrawn from publication for fear of offending a minority group? This was reported by a member of the same minority group - who read it to her child and was offended by the poor writing rather than the subject matter....or the fact that the "Where's Bin Laden?" version of "Where's Wally?" sells well in an Islamic bookshop in Sydney but is not available in a chain bookstore for fear of offending Muslims?
There are still "Womin" and "Chairpersons" (despite the fact that "Chairman" comes from a French word that has nothing to do with men or women.
More serious still though what about those situations when we do without information we need for fear of offending or committing a PC blunder? "Would you care to go out to a meal with me so we can discuss the forthcoming conference arrangements?" "No, I may not be wearing a wedding ring but I happen to have a 'partner in life'. I just don't mention him/her because it is not relevant to my working life." "Oh I am sorry I didn't realise..." "Well it's no business of yours is it?"

Take the 2005 Australia Council fiasco over the play about the Costello Brothers. So insensed for example were some media that they hacked it to pieces. So p.o'd was the Government that they cut funding and gave the job to someone else to run it, a Liberal lady. There is a good book titled "Silencing Dissent" by C Hamilton and S Maddison out this year that details much of the way the Howard Government has stiffled debate both in the public and parliamentary arena.
hey we do not have a freedom of speech bill, the McManus and fellow journalist from the Herald-Sun (Vic)getting done in the courts is a good example. Even if they do not ever reveall their source, the Gov knows who it is and i think they got the boot pretty quick. But that is a good example in itself, you cannot even raise a concern within the Party or see-ya.
i think we are all intelligent enough to know each to their own, but also, sticks and stones...My son is bi-racial so i hate 'gook' comments at anybody, but are we not made of thicker skin? It should only be so when it invokes violence or discrimination. But where is that line now? Good point about wanting to be in the majority yet defining terms so as to further distance and discriminate? Comments.