by hilzoy
"Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.
One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute."
Look: it would be one thing if there were corpulent men in red suits wandering around Australia saying "Bitch bitch bitch!" (On reflection, there probably are.) But this is ridiculous.
Because, as we all know, "ho ho ho" is just patriarchy speech for "c*nt c*nt c*nt", which, of course, junior hears as "death to santa!!!!!", thus frightening him/her.
Also, is this part of the war on Christmas?
Posted by: Ugh | November 15, 2007 at 08:51 PM
I'm torn between wanting to satirize the war on Christmas, and wanting to express just how dismal this story is.
Posted by: Lisa Harney | November 15, 2007 at 09:13 PM
I'll find the link, but I'm pretty sure it's not true.
Posted by: LizardBreath | November 15, 2007 at 09:35 PM
I think it is the Aussie accent that makes it so harsh, coupled with the fact that Santas down under and in shorts and flip-flops...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 15, 2007 at 09:36 PM
At least according to this article, some agency was telling Santas not to say "Ho ho ho" but it was because it was scaring children with the booming, not anything about offensiveness to women.
Posted by: LizardBreath | November 15, 2007 at 09:39 PM
never fear, our brave troops have just won a major victory in the war on Christmas!
Posted by: cleek | November 15, 2007 at 09:42 PM
It is not ridiculous. Why not? Because ridiculous is completely inadequate. In fact I'm not sure our language has a word adequate to describe how stupid that is if true.
Posted by: Jim Satterfield | November 15, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Soooo, I'm assuming the next step is to ban all ho-ho's and hoes from being sold in Australia as well? It makes just as much sense, right?
Now that I think about it, it is funny that saying it aloud once has one meaning, repeated twice has another, and repeated three times has a third. Is there any other sound like that?
Posted by: CaptainBooshi | November 15, 2007 at 10:27 PM
"Yeah" means yes.
"Yeah, yeah" means no.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah" means you're a Beatle.
And put me down for "debunked by the weekend".
Posted by: DonBoy | November 15, 2007 at 10:46 PM
A year from now, this antipodean ridiculosity will have been forgotten by everyone. Everyone outside the wingnut universe, whose sad denizens will still be gibbering on about this outrage, with a few folkloric refinements:
* relocation to a suburb in the U.S.
* sponsorship by the ACLU
* involvement of terrorists, with beards on their chins white as the snow
Posted by: dogrose | November 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
"In fact I'm not sure our language has a word adequate to describe how stupid that is if true."
But LizardBreath already demonstrated it is not true.
"Soooo, I'm assuming the next step is to ban all ho-ho's and hoes from being sold in Australia as well?"
Yes, but LizardBreath already demonstrated that it is not true.
"And put me down for 'debunked by the weekend'."
Yes, but LizardBreath already pointed out that it was debunked.
Maybe this needs to be repeated several more times, more slowly? Or WTF, people should quit taking stupid pills.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 15, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Did you mean stupid pills or the stupid pills I take?
Posted by: John Thullen | November 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Down at the community theatre where I am involved in a production currently, it was decided that a better change for santa would be a peg-leg, a tricorner hat, and a hook hand, which would provide the added incentive of allowing him to proclaim "Arr! Arr! Arrrrrrrr!". As you can imagine, we all very much enjoy http://www.talklikeapirate.com/>International Talk Like A Pirate Day
Posted by: socratic_me | November 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM
But if no one took stupid pills, who would be left to ask Hillary Clinton "Diamonds or pearls?"?
Posted by: KCinDC | November 15, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Santas down under
Most creepy porn movie theme, ever.
Posted by: DaveC | November 16, 2007 at 12:09 AM
LizardBreath's link doesn't debunk it. It confirms it for Australia and notes that it isn't holding in New Zealand.
Posted by: McMartin | November 16, 2007 at 12:49 AM
OH: you don't say OH, OH: look outOH, OH, OH: Jane Fonda in Barbarella.
Posted by: Meesha | November 16, 2007 at 01:00 AM
OH: you don't say OH, OH: look outOH, OH, OH: Jane Fonda in Barbarella.
Posted by: Meesha | November 16, 2007 at 01:02 AM
I come from a land down under
Where Santas ho-ho-ho with thunder
Posted by: Mike Schilling | November 16, 2007 at 01:39 AM
McMartin: "LizardBreath's link doesn't debunk it. It confirms it for Australia and notes that it isn't holding in New Zealand."
Link:
It wouldn't have been much of a story if that were in the first story."Temp agency has Santas using 'ha' instead of 'ho' due to concerns about loudness" wouldn't have anyone going on about political correctness, and how ridiculous it can get: that's the story angle getting the attention, if you haven't noticed.
And it turns out to be another phony story. Which is worth noticing, since these sorts of stories usually are, when looked at closely.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2007 at 02:23 AM
Actually, when I read this, the first thing I thought was: Hmm, Daily Telegraph story - wonder if it's actually true? The Daily Telegraph is the most reliable of the UK's right-wing newspapers, but "most reliable" doesn't mean "can be counted upon never to report a phony story that supports Christian claims that they're being 'persecuted'".
(To be fair to the DT, this is not a story that actually matters all that much - it probably came across someone's desk as a newsy snippet that looked like too much fun to factcheck.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 16, 2007 at 03:18 AM
I propose Howdy, howdy, howdy! ;-)
Just in theory ha ha ha would be a bad replacement anyway because the way it is usually used is that of "oh yeah, that is very funny." implying that it's definitely not.
I agree though that for the fundies it won't matter, whether the story is true or bogus. Those guys take "The Onion" for real, if there is a chance for outrage.
Posted by: Hartmut | November 16, 2007 at 05:34 AM
I propose "tee-hee" as a good, non-scary replacement for "Ho ho ho!" Somewhere down the road there would need to be a book or movie or Broadway musical about The Giggling Santas of Sydney.
Posted by: The Modesto Kid | November 16, 2007 at 09:14 AM
What if "ha, ha, ha," is offensive or frightening in some other language? Only mute Santa's need apply?
Posted by: Edward_ | November 16, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Then "ha, yadda, yadda, yadda" would be the fall-back expression of Xmas cheer.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 16, 2007 at 10:08 AM
A 3 stooges style "Nuyck, nuyck, nuyck" strikes me as better. You can shout "Ha!" just as easily as "Ho!", but I challenge you to shout "Nuyck!" at a frightenly high volume...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | November 16, 2007 at 10:25 AM
but I challenge you to shout "Nuyck!" at a frightenly high volume...
Anyone who can do that should definitely start a band.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | November 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Gary: The original Daily Telegraph article that was cited by AFP also exposes the false nature of this (non)story.
Jes: The Telegraph in question is one of Rupert Murdoch's infamous right wing tabloids from Down Under. The Sydney-based rag and its sister paper from Melbourne, the Herald Sun, are more akin to The Daily Mail than the UK Torygraph, ie, entirely unreliable (though my Aussie sweetie informs me that both the Sun and the Tele do make excellent bird cage liners).
Posted by: matttbastard | November 16, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Hmm, maybe it was the CNN people taking stupid pills on the "Diamonds or pearls?" question.
Posted by: KCinDC | November 16, 2007 at 01:08 PM
I'd like to propose "Mwa ha ha ha" as a possible substitute.
When I have a chance I will draft a letter to the Australian government suggesting this.
Posted by: JakeB | November 16, 2007 at 03:47 PM
matttbastard: The Telegraph in question is one of Rupert Murdoch's infamous right wing tabloids from Down Under.
Serve me right for not clicking on the link! If I'd known it was Rupert Murdoch-owned, no question it's a lie...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 16, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Gary,
You did not write the complete quote, which is this:
"[...] Westaff Australia's national manager Glen Jansz told Adelaide's Sunday Mail claims there were concerns the term "ho" could be offensive were false.... BUT CONFIRMED THE EDICT HAD BEEN ISSUED."
In other words, it indeed is true, and when called on it, the management is backtracking with some unconvincing excuses .. a Santa screeching a belittling "ha ha ha" would certainly be more likely to confuse and frighten a child than the expected "ho's". Santa laughing at my child might even inspire a punch in the rosy red nose.
Posted by: Robert | November 17, 2007 at 02:27 AM
Of course that would be a "jolly" punch in the nose.
Posted by: Robert | November 17, 2007 at 02:33 AM
Some "edict."
Secondly, to repeat for the nth time, "claims there were concerns the term 'ho' could be offensive were false."
If you want to claim that somehow there's some other "it" that matters, you'll have to torture English to attempt it, but I don't think even water-boarding English will make it give that up.
Let's try reading for content: "Kiwi Santas will get to say whatever they like when greeting children, even the now controversial 'ho, ho, ho'."Posted by: Gary Farber | November 17, 2007 at 03:18 AM
Ain't no Kiwi ho' gonna stop this Santa saying Ho,Ho,Ho....so there, ha!...ha,ha
Posted by: Jack | November 29, 2007 at 08:34 AM