[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4193938.stm

[Mefustae]

"Please explain!" (Ozzy joke)

[Rictor]

Good for him. People should speak their mind...though it does seems the Aussies do it quite a lot (I remember the Labour leader being quite...explicit in his views on Bush and John Howard)

[Turnsky]

yep, most aussies aren't so afraid of political correctness as our american or british counterparts.

[mikhael]

He was definately wrong, but at least he owned up to it and resigned. That sort of thing almost never happens in the US.

[icespeed]

surprisingly enough in a multicultural country like oz there's quite a bit of hidden racism. but then again i suppose there never has been a truly multicultural country. they're all places where white ppl tolerate the presence of others. (don't anyone take offence. i'm talking about true bogans here.)

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by icespeed
surprisingly enough in a multicultural country like oz there's quite a bit of hidden racism. but then again i suppose there never has been a truly multicultural country. they're all places where white ppl tolerate the presence of others. (don't anyone take offence. i'm talking about true bogans here.)

the mulleted kind?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mikhael
He was definately wrong, but at least he owned up to it and resigned. That sort of thing almost never happens in the US.

Why should one remark end the man's career. Everyone has made them at times, I know I certainly have, and though it isn't politically correct it's certainly not racsist either. He's not unfit to hold office just because he acts like the rest of us.

[mikhael]

First, speak for yourself. I actually don't make remarks like that. I was, I like to think, raised better than that.

Second, he's a politician, not the guy that fixes your photocopier. His job requires that he be aware of what he says and the ramifications of the same. This isn't about political correctness: its about using your brain to control what dribbles out of your mouth. As a leader (and that's what a politician is supposed to be, in my opinion), he is, and should be, held to a higher standard than the photocopier repairman.

He screwed up. He recognized it and did the right thing. Shows a lot more integrity than trying to recast the statement in a politically "good" light, or go into full on damage control and re-spin mode.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Rictor


Why should one remark end the man's career. Everyone has made them at times, I know I certainly have, and though it isn't politically correct it's certainly not racsist either. He's not unfit to hold office just because he acts like the rest of us.

People seem to try and hold officeholders to a higher standard than themselves and their peers, maybe to justify granting them more power. But the problem is that as a result, it's the people who can give out the best image that rise to the top.

I don't really agree with it, but other than selecting government members by lot, I don't see a way to totally eliminate the trend.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


Why should one remark end the man's career. Everyone has made them at times, I know I certainly have, and though it isn't politically correct it's certainly not racsist either. He's not unfit to hold office just because he acts like the rest of us.

Unless it was part of his parties manifesto, he wasn't elected in to represent the voters by slapping womens arses and calling Asian women mail order brides.

Politicians have a responsibility for upholding a public images and 'setting an example'; it's part of the job, same as with any public official.  More importantly, if he makes a racist or sexist remark, then it raises immediate questions over fair legislation - doesn't matter if it was a joke or not, because once that question is raised, it becomes impossible to truly answer.

Like mik said, part of a politicians job is their responsibility for what they say in public speech.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mikhael
First, speak for yourself. I actually don't make remarks like that. I was, I like to think, raised better than that.

Second, he's a politician, not the guy that fixes your photocopier. His job requires that he be aware of what he says and the ramifications of the same. This isn't about political correctness: its about using your brain to control what dribbles out of your mouth. As a leader (and that's what a politician is supposed to be, in my opinion), he is, and should be, held to a higher standard than the photocopier repairman.

He screwed up. He recognized it and did the right thing. Shows a lot more integrity than trying to recast the statement in a politically "good" light, or go into full on damage control and re-spin mode.

You have lived for x years, part of that in the Navy IIRC, and have never made what could be considered a politically incorrect comment? I find that hard to believe.

Yes, public officials should be held to a higher standard, but they are still human. It's unreasonable to expect them to never drink, never swear, never talk **** and so on. I would much rather they come into their office drunk every day and make a pass at their secretary then, say, implement policies which shaft the poor or invade a foreign country.

He spends however many years, possibly decades, in politics, supposedly serving the public good, and one comment made while drunk ends it all? You build a hundred bridges and steal once, to the world you're not a bridge-builder, you're a thief. I doubt any of us could stand up to such scrutiny or live with such a standard.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

He spends however many years, possibly decades, in politics, supposedly serving the public good, and one comment made while drunk ends it all? You build a hundred bridges and steal once, to the world you're not a bridge-builder, you're a thief. I doubt any of us could stand up to such scrutiny or live with such a standard.

But you are a thief in that case.  A policeman spends 10 years flawless work on the job, and then beats the **** out of a suspect - those 10 years prior count for nothing.

[Black Wolf]

The guy tried to kill himself last night.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


But you are a thief in that case.  A policeman spends 10 years flawless work on the job, and then beats the **** out of a suspect - those 10 years prior count for nothing.

And that's how it should be?

If we only judge the wrongs, not the rights, it's a recipe for condemning every single individual on the Earth. You have to look at the balance of his past actions, sort of a Pearly Gates type deal. You can argue the particular good:bad ratio needed to make one a basically good person, and therefore fit to hold office, but I think it's absurd to discredit his entire career based on a single statement.

Can you think of one single person who has lived a blameless enough life to reach the bar you set?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


And that's how it should be?

If we only judge the wrongs, not the rights, it's a recipe for condemning every single individual on the Earth. You have to look at the balance of his past actions, sort of a Pearly Gates type deal. You can argue the particular good:bad ratio needed to make one a basically good person, and therefore fit to hold office, but I think it's absurd to discredit his entire career based on a single statement.

Can you think of one single person who has lived a blameless enough life to reach the bar you set?

Should we forgive or ignore all crimes on the basis of them not having been committed before?  Should we assume that people can't fake who they are, and what their prejudices are, especially politicians?

Is being a decent, ordinary person now that rare?  It used to be expected of people.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
And that's how it should be?

Of course it is. Do you really think policemen should get a free punishment beating for every 10 years of service?

Originally posted by Rictor
If we only judge the wrongs, not the rights, it's a recipe for condemning every single individual on the Earth. You have to look at the balance of his past actions, sort of a Pearly Gates type deal. You can argue the particular good:bad ratio needed to make one a basically good person, and therefore fit to hold office, but I think it's absurd to discredit his entire career based on a single statement.

Can you think of one single person who has lived a blameless enough life to reach the bar you set?

And how do you know that this guy was previously blameless?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Should we forgive or ignore all crimes on the basis of them not having been committed before?  Should we assume that people can't fake who they are, and what their prejudices are, especially politicians?
Is being a decent, ordinary person now that rare?  It used to be expected of people.

Uhm, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Also, let's be clear about this, making off-colour remarks is not a crime, nor should it be.

Originally posted by karajorma

Of course it is. Do you really think policemen should get a free punishment beating for every 10 years of service?

Oh come now, that's twisting my words. But whether it should end the hypothetical cop's career would depend on the cirumstance, severity of beating, his past record and many other things. If he has a clean record and the beating was mild, then no, he shouldn't be forced to resign.

But we're talking about entirely different things. It's a fine analogy, but there is a world of difference between a beating and a politically incorrect statement made while drunk.

Originally posted by karajorma
And how do you know that this guy was previously blameless?

If he wasn't, I'm pretty sure it would be mentioned in the article. Besides, if he quits over such a triviality, I must only assume that his past is more or less spotless, since he would have forced out sooner if the cause existsed.

[karajorma]

Or that this was the last straw.

I've seen politicians go for less simply because people were sick of them making mistakes like this one.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


Uhm, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Also, let's be clear about this, making off-colour remarks is not a crime, nor should it be.

Let's regard the previous use of 'crime' to be more 'break of employment conditions', then.

 As public speakers and representatives, politicians have a civic duty with regards to what they say.  It's part of the job requirements, and has been for a very, very long time.  If a politician makes a racist remark - even as a joke - it throws upon the issue of whether they can be considered to be representing all their constitutuents, and whether or not they will be fair in their support of legislature.

This also applies to certain other jobs involving the public; if an LA police officer made a joke (say being interviewed on TV) about Rodney King 'deserving it', would he (or she) be left alone because it was a first 'offence'?  

If I was to suddenly crack a joke about 'wogs' or 'spics' or some similar racist term, would you still be as willing to assume I'm not racist, despite previous protestations?

(NB: I'm not racist, of course, which is why I'd never make such a dodgy joke)

In all these cases, the job itself has an inherent, and known, responsibility for public speech.