Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Offence is taken, not given

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013

If I were to suggest that Nicola Roxon has a fat bum, she might be offended or insulted. Moreover, if the comment was made in the context of her role as Australia’s Attorney General, it may be construed as a political statement and in contravention of her proposed new anti-discrimination law, especially if I also suggested female Labor politicians have a tendency towards fat bums.

Indeed, I could find myself needing to prove my comment was not discriminatory or offensive, at my own cost and without legal representation.

On the other hand, Ms Roxon might not find the suggestion offensive at all. If she were sure her bum is perfectly proportioned, that my opinion is of no importance or I am not competent to pass judgement, she may not be the least bit bothered.


Given that I cannot predict her response, it is difficult to see why I, or anyone else who made a similar comment, should be held responsible for whether or not she finds it offensive. A comment may be directed at a hundred people, yet only one will feel offended. Those who insist offence is caused by others are placing an unbearable burden on anyone who opens their mouth.

That applies irrespective of the intent of the person making the comment. In the Australian vernacular being called a bastard can be intended as a serious insult, a minor criticism or a term of endearment, yet someone may find them all or none offensive.

The same is true when it comes to comments about political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious values or myriad other factors that might give rise to offense. There is no way of knowing in advance how a comment might be received.

In tort and criminal law there is a rule that one is liable for all consequences resulting from activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage due to a pre-existing vulnerability. Known as the egg shell rule, it means liability may be severe if a person suffers injury as a result of negligence or assault and has a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg.

This relates only to physical injury though, and there is no such rule regarding verbal matters. Nonetheless, there is a growing trend to attribute blame for the consequences of offence at the feet of those who utter the words, not the one who claims to feel offended.

When a U.K. nurse received a prank call from a Sydney radio station pretending to be the Queen, the immediate response focused on its entertainment value. Yet when the nurse committed suicide, blame was immediately attributed to the announcers who made the call even though the nurse had the psychological equivalent of an egg shell skull, having made two prior suicide attempts.


A section in the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Further consequences were considered in the Andrew Bolt case.

This can have quite significant consequences for the way we speak. In America, and increasingly now here, it has become customary to wish everyone Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas out of concern that non-Christians may feel offended. This is despite that fact that only a tiny minority of Jews and Moslems ever claimed to have felt offended by the term, and there are plenty who use it themselves.

Many people argue that a free society must include the right to offend. While I understand that argument, I disagree. A free society means one in which we are each responsible for our own actions and feelings, and accept responsibility for them.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

48 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is a former Senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 48 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy