As this website has revealed, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has been holding consultations with the Sydney Beat Project.
These consultations discussed removing exemptions from (mostly Christian) private educational institutions that allow them to lawfully discriminate on the grounds of homosexuality.
For some reason, the Sydney Beat Project doesn’t like these laws. It probably has something to do with the fact that the Sydney Beat Project is campaigning to decriminalise sex in public. Or maybe it’s because this organisation is the peak representational body for unhappy homosexuals who get caught by police breaking the law in public toilets now.
Either way, the Sydney Beat Project seemingly thinks that (mostly Christian) private schools should be forced to hire the kind of people it represents and entrust them with the care and education of schoolchildren. And I can think of a bazillion reasons why any sane parent would be utterly disgusted that the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board is giving these people the time of day.
And that is exactly why I wrote about this issue.
However, the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board does not see things this way. He especially doesn’t like the fact that his little organisation has been subjected to scrutiny. So he wrote to me last week and ‘requested’ that I remove my post.
Considering my post was about the publicly available information on the webpage of the Sydney Beat Project and in the annual reports of the Anti-Discrimination Board, as tabled in the Parliament of New South Wales, I am not inclined to adhere to his ‘request’.
I am more interested in hearing why the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has been meeting with an organisation that protects those engaged in criminal sexual activity.
And the good news is that we are going to find out.
That’s because the Reverend Fred Nile, leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has asked just that very question in the Parliament of New South Wales. And on 19 December, just in time for Christmas, the representative of the Attorney General will have to answer this:
- “The Annual Reports of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board show that it has been in consultation since 2008 primarily with gay and lesbian groups and unions, including the Sydney Beat Project, regarding anti-discrimination laws as they apply to religious organisations and private educational institutions. These reports do not indicate that religious organisations or private educational institutions were invited to participate in any consultations regarding anti-discrimination laws.
- Furthermore, a website run by the Sydney Beat Project states that it aims to: “Seek legislative change to remove homophobic laws and decriminalise public sex in NSW, looking at the Amsterdam model and similar moves in the UK for direction.”
- Does the Attorney-General believe that it is appropriate for the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board to run consultations regarding anti-discrimination laws as they apply to religious organisations and private educational institutions, especially when those consultations do not include religious organisations or private educational institutions but do include an organisation seeking to decriminalise sex in public?
- Can the Attorney-General rule out any plans to remove exemptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations and public schools?
- Can the Attorney-General confirm that this Government has no plans to decriminalise sex in public?
I can’t wait to hear the response to those questions.
And I can’t wait until tomorrow either.
That’s because the Premier’s representative will have to answer another bunch of questions from Reverend Nile about the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Board. For instance, how many people has the Anti-Discrimination Board investigated who live outside of New South Wales? And who are they?
Considering that I live in Queensland and have received more emails than you can poke a stick at from the Anti-Discrimination Board, I am looking forward to the answer provided.
More importantly, it will be enlightening to know if the Anti-Discrimination Board has ever knocked back a complaint of homosexual vilification. Or does it just rubber stamp them through?
It certainly appears that way to me. In my case, I am now on trial for content that was actually written by the complainant.
The leading homosexual activist in New South Wales wrote something on my Facebook page, took a screenshot, and then fired it off to the Anti-Discrimination Board. And even though his name appears above the text that he ‘complains’ about, the Anti-Discrimination Board accepted the complaint. As a result, I am now forking out thousands to defend myself before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
It’s an absolute farce that makes kangaroo courts look competent and unbiased.
As such, it comes as no surprise that the Anti-Discrimination Board also accepted complaints that I ‘vilified’ homosexuals by condemning the behaviour of those perverted men who think it’s fine and dandy to expose their genitalia to children at ‘gay pride’ parades. In North America. It seems ‘jurisdiction’ is not a word that the Anti-Discrimination Board is familiar with.
I’m also particularly interested in knowing how many complaints have been lodged, and by just how many people. After all, it would be really embarrassing if it was revealed that homosexual vilification provisions had become nothing more than the plaything of a very small number of activists targeting their political opponents. In other states.
So stay tuned. There will be plenty more to say about this subject.