All of a sudden Triggs finds the delete button

Two weeks ago, Queen Gillian frocked herself up and went out to mingle with the natives at the ABC.

She even deigned to appear on the 730 program, where she had this to say after polite questioning about her right (or should that be ‘left’) royal stuff-up while investigating ‘racial hatred’ complaints about university students from QUT:

“…this one was one that had a level of substance. The complaints were ones that attracted a certain measure of concern about the nature of the comments that were made. I won’t repeat the language but it was worrying and troubling…”

Just so you know, quoted below is one of those ‘worrying’ and ‘troubling’ comments that cannot be repeated in polite anti-discrimination society:

“My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is ­encourage separation and ­inequality.”

If anything, that comment should be damned for its boring adherence to politically-correct speak. However, it most certainly is not racist. Even in today’s world of absurd, it’s hard to fathom how it can possibly be labelled as hate-speak not to be repeated.

The words above cost Kyran Findlater a cool 15 grand: $10,000 in legal fees and another $5,000 in ‘go away’ money. It’s slightly more than an arm and a leg for a university student.

And why did it cost him so? Well the same ABC interview makes it clear that Gillian Triggs must investigate and conciliate every complaint:

LEIGH SALES: As Sabra Lane just reported, the Human Rights Commission has said that the bar for accepting complaints is too low but you have the power to throw out complaints that are trivial, vexatious and lacking in substance. Why didn’t you do that sooner in the QUT case?

GILLIAN TRIGGS: Perhaps I can first explain that the commission is bound to accept any complaint that is in writing that alleges a breach of the discrimination law.

So the first obligation is to accept the complaint and then to investigate it and conciliate it.

In fact, Gillian even went on to explicitly make the point that the Australian Human Rights Commission was not a court and that its job is to conciliate complaints rather than guessing at what a court might decide. See:

GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well, we could have made that judgement about what a court might do but that misunderstands our role.

Our role is not a court. We are there to, in effect, stop matters going to the court.

We have about 20,000 complaints a year, or matters a year. And we try, our job is to investigate and conciliate them and that’s why we come back to the threshold point.

It’s a very low threshold.

Hence Kyran Findlater was kept dangling above the burning stake by Ms Triggs. But she didn’t like being blamed for the unjustifiable suffering that she had caused these students. So Triggs doubled-down on her claims that she had no choice but to accept, investigate and conciliate the baseless claims against them. The day after her ABC interview with the 730 program, the Australian High Commissar of Unbiased Political Investigations went back to ABC radio to dig her hole a little deeper, making it even clearer that the Thought Police must investigate and attempt to conciliate all complaints:

FRAN KELLY: Is Malcolm Turnbull right when he says the bar is set too low? Are the current laws being abused? Do they make your job too difficult?

GILLIAN TRIGGS: We have at the Human Rights Commission for many years – certainly the last 5 or 6 years – asked the respective Attorneys General to amend our statute so that we have a greater ability to decline matters right at the beginning.

At the moment, once we receive a written complaint alleging a breach of anti-discrimination law, I must, as President, investigate and attempt to conciliate. That’s our role. So yes, the answer is we would welcome an inquiry, we would welcome an attempt to moderate our statute that would make it a little easier for the Commission to say: these matters are coming to us and we don’t think they have any legs at all.

So, you can imagine my surprise today. I received a letter from the Australian Human Rights Commission informing me that, to use the language of Queen Gillian, it didn’t think my complaint against Linda Burney had any legs at all.

Actually, I’m not really surprised.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is not there to be unbiased. It exists precisely to be biased. That’s what it’s there for. There’s no point having a state-funded political police force to do Penny Wong and the Greens’ dirty work if it has to worry about things like impartiality or consistency.

Now, I’ll have more to say about this in coming days. And I will be responding to the letter sent on behalf of Queen Gillian in due course. I’ll start by pointing out her own words that she must investigate and conciliate every complaint, so much so that she’s been furiously lobbying for the law to be changed for the past half a decade.

Gillian Triggs cannot simply embark on a whinge-fest about how hard it is dismiss complaints when a court makes her look foolish and then the next day decide that politically inconvenient complaints don’t meet her very low threshold.

I’ll also be reminding Gillian of her seemingly frequent habit of confusing fact with fiction. I’d hate for people to think that she rocked up to the ABC armed with a bunch of porkies. Or that the ABC failed to notice…

In the meantime, I am preparing for a court case to take on the New South Wales version of 18c. It will be heard next week in Sydney.

Just know this: the first quote below has been described by Gillian Triggs as so worrying and troubling that it can’t be repeated. And it cost a student $15,000:

“My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is ­encourage separation and ­inequality.”

But this next quote insulting white males, in the opinion of the Australian Human Rights Commission, hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of reaching the threshold of a racial vilification complaint under 18c – a threshold that Gillian herself described as very low:

“It astounds me that the people that are advocating for the removal of 18C are basically white men of a certain age that have never experienced racial discrimination in their life.”

Gillian Triggs’ actions make it very clear: she is not against racially-charged statements at all. She’s only against the ones that suit her. And that’s why she, and her bad law, must go.

If you want to read Queen Gillian’s letter, click here.

And if you want to sign my submission to the parliamentary inquiry calling for the abolition of Queen Gillian’s evil empire, click here.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!