November 13th 2010

  Buy Issue 2840

Articles from this issue:

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Inquiry ruled out into atrocities of late-term abortions

COVER STORY: Election outcome will weaken Obama

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Voters abandon directionless Labor

ELECTORAL REFORM: The undetectable crime of electoral fraud

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: Sexual 'diversity' now AHRC's obsession

WATER POLICY: Commonwealth Water Act must be rewritten

EDITORIAL: Global implications of Europe's fragility

EUROPE: Multiculturalism has 'utterly failed': German chancellor

AFGHANISTAN: The case for Australia's continued engagement

CHINA: How 'one child' policy threatens China's future

SPECIAL FEATURE: Creativity suffocated by managerialism and HR

NORTHERN TERRITORY: A backward step for the policing profession

QUEENSLAND: 12 per cent swing in favour of protecting unborn

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Inquiry ruled out into atrocities of late-term abortions

OPINION: Why we should not legalise euthanasia

OPINION: The history book that helped bind a disparate nation

MEDIA: American conservative pundits hail voter revolt

BOOK REVIEW: OPERATION MINCEMEAT: The True Spy Story that Changed the Course of World War II, by Ben Macintyre

Books promotion page

Sexual 'diversity' now AHRC's obsession

by Jerome Appleby

News Weekly, November 13, 2010
How many lobby groups in Australia have the benefit of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding to promote a blatantly political agenda? The Australian Human Rights Commission, lobby-group extraordinaire and the great arbiter of right and wrong, is such an organisation.

While other lobby groups have to go out and fundraise to support their causes, the AHRC can sit back on its haunches and watch the cash roll in.

In 2009-10, the organisation is reported to have received about $12 million dollars of your hard earned money.

The AHRC has no obligation to make its agenda truly reflective of the community to ensure it receives financial support, as the money keeps coming in anyway.

It can support unpopular causes such as same-sex marriage, as it has done in one of its latest discussion papers, entitled Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity in Australia (October 2010) (PDF, 336 KB).

The AHRC doesn't allow itself to be bothered by the fact that over 80 per cent of Australians voted for either the Coalition or the ALP at the last federal election, and that both major political blocs are opposed to same-sex marriage. Nor the fact that numerous other small parties also support a traditional understanding of marriage. No, the Commission knows better than the overwhelming majority of Australians.

Preoccupying itself with concerns irrelevant to most people is what the AHRC does best.

Rather than content itself with the fact that there is already more than ample protection against sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity discrimination at the state level, the AHRC sees nothing wrong with the Commonwealth duplicating these laws.

The AHRC has to justify its existence and the swag of taxpayer money it's been allocated. The less left over at the end of the financial year the better - one wouldn't want to risk a well-deserved budget cut.

But we shouldn't be all that surprised at this nonsense. The AHRC has a habit of producing some rather kooky stuff. Demonstrating once again that it has too much money and personnel, the AHRC discussion paper lists all sorts of different gender "identities".

There is "transgender, trans, transsexual and intersex". There is also "androgynous, agender, a cross-dresser, a drag king, a drag queen, genderfluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, a third gender, and a third sex" (page 2). Haven't seen any toilets designated as such, but if the AHRC has its way, I guess it is only a matter of time.

Even with all these terms you still have to be cautious you don't offend someone. That's why there is a "note on terminology" to begin with. In it the Commission "acknowledges the significance of terminology" and that the "use of inappropriate terminology can be disempowering".

But wait, there's more. Also acknowledged is that "terminology is often contested". One cannot be too careful when it comes to these important matters.

Proving that they are a bright bunch at the AHRC, the discussion paper informs us that sex "is more generally understood as to whether a person is male or female".

Yes, it would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This is what your hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted on.

Forget real human rights. The Commission is too concerned with pseudo "rights", such as allowing male employees to wear dresses to work. And don't worry about how having such an employee may affect your business. The Commission doesn't worry about your possible losses, so neither should you.

Of course, the Commission has a history of being rather selective in its application of human rights, and being blatantly bigoted too.

Take, for instance, the comments two years ago of the then AHRC's Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma. The ABC reported him as having declared that "there is evidence of a growing fundamentalist religious lobby, in areas such as same-sex relationships, stem-cell research and abortion", and that "there is a balance to be struck between the freedom to practise a religion and not pushing those beliefs on the rest of society". (ABC News, September 17, 2008).

Such biased and gratuitous comments do nothing to inspire confidence in the impartiality of the AHRC as it sets about determining which freedoms Australians should be allowed to enjoy.

Mr Calma seemed to be saying that because people do not agree with his views, they shouldn't be able to lobby or even freely practise their own beliefs.

All this is very disturbing. A Commission avowedly committed to human rights should be expected to uphold them, not clamp down on them.

If left-wing human rights activists want to promote a radical agenda, let them do so at their own expense, not at the expense of taxpayers. Let them go out into the community and raise millions of dollars by their own efforts. Let's see how long their cause would last then.


Consultation: Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity (Australian Human Rights Commission, October 2010).

Downloadable PDF of AHRC discussion paper.

"National religious freedom review to be launched", ABC News, September 17, 2008.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am