Sue the complainer instead

This - seriously - is how The Australian had to (successfully) defend another Bill Leak cartoon from some fool of a complainant to the Press Council, with a discussion of chutney, solar panels and the barrenness of parts of India:

The publication said the cartoon did not intend to, and did not, ridicule Indian people. It refers to mango chutney in the context of a typically Indian food, but this reference was not offensive. The cartoon had depicted Indian people in a barren, rural environment, but this was a reference that was accurate and not offensive.

The publication said the cartoon’s depiction of Indian people stating that they could not eat the solar panels provided by the UN was not substantially offensive or distressing. It did not in any way denigrate the intellectual capacity of Indian people, nor their capacity to manage modern life. Instead, the cartoon denigrates the UN by ridiculing its decision to provide solar panels at the expense of more appropriate aid. It is not an attack on Indians for being poor or uneducated, but an attack on those advocating what the cartoonist considered to be useless aid.

Some will say that this proves that the Press Council procedures work, but each complaint involves lawyers, money worry and time. The process is the punishment and the disincentive to keep going.