>No, because "...you little..." is a common phrase. If you said, "You creepy midget" then you have issues with small people.

Wrong example IMO, because midget is an insulting term already. Not much would change when I said "You midget"

So what if I said, "You are a creepy midget" to one small person, and "You are a fine midget" to another. How could that ever mean that all midgets are creepy or all midgets are fine?

It all seems that you (and others in this thread), seem to include emotional, cultural and historical arguments into the definition of discrimination. IMO, you can't do that because then the definition is not clear anymore and depending on one perception of discrimination. There is no rational in here, esspecially for people not aware of (negative) cultural or historical aspects of the target. You cannot build a law on it, as it has to be rational. In the described cases it is just not discrimination. IMO, there is no way you can convict based on the named arguments because everyone percieves them differently. The statement must without any doubt in itself be discriminating without leaving room for intepretation.

That does not mean that statments like "you black rat" or "Blond airhead" are not insulting, yes they certainly are insulting where the specification emphsizes the insult, but from a literary standpoint you just cannot say that each blond is an airhead or the other way arround. It seems that many people will percieve it this way, but I certainly don't, nor do I think any lawyer would percieve it this way.

Walter,