Since May 2014:
- at least 32 complaints of homosexual vilification or victimisation have been lodged against me by anti-free speech activist Garry Burns;
- the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) has conducted at least 32 preliminary inquiries into those complaints;
- the ADB has launched at least a further 26 full-blown investigations into those complaints;
- at least 21 of those complaints have been referred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT);
- the NCAT has sat on at least 14 separate days to consider these complaints;
- there have been three matters referred to the NCAT Appeal Panel;
- two further matters have made their way to the New South Wales Supreme Court;
- a further two matters are now before the New South Wales Court of Appeal; and
- I have lost count of the number of times these matters have now been raised before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal.
And at the end of all of this, the number of times I have been found to have broken the law sits at a big fat zero.
That’s a lot of effort by the Thought Police for absolutely no return.
It’s also cost me about $200,000 (thus far). I can only imagine how much the New South Wales taxpayer has been slugged as well. After all, they fund the ADB, the NCAT (including its activist magistrate) and the NSW courts. One is left to guess, but the total cost of paying for all the government and judicial effort in this farcical saga would now have to be in the several millions.
But while my score remains nil, there have been people involved in this circus who have breached the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977.
I can name them. They are:
- Stepan Kerkyashian – former President of the ADB;
- Elizabeth Wing – Acting President of the ADB;
- Connie Santiago – Acting Manager – Enquiries and Conciliation,
- Tory McGuire – also Acting Manager – Enquiries and Conciliation.
The reason I can name them is because I received a letter from the Acting President of the ADB last week. In it, Elizabeth Wing truculently admitted that the ADB had breached S.90C of the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977. The people named above have a statutory or delegated responsibility to comply with this section. It states:
90C Progress reports
The President must, as frequently as is reasonably convenient and, in any event, at periods not exceeding 90 days, give notice to the parties to the complaint of the steps taken for the purpose of the investigation.
I maintain that the ADB has never once provided me with any update outlining the steps taken for the purpose of its investigations. Sure, it sends me heaps of letters requiring me to respond to complaints. And it sends heaps of letters to the complainant with my response. But neither Burns nor myself carry out any investigation. That is the ADB’s baby and I remain entirely in the dark about its investigations or the steps it takes.
In fact, I am rather left with the impression that the entirety of the steps the ADB takes in its investigations are as follows:
- Receive a complaint from the most offended man in the universe.
- Pick up a rubber stamp.
- Whack it on the complaint and post it off to the NCAT.
- Advise the NSW government that the ADB needs more funding to cope with the volume of complaints it is required to ‘investigate’.
However, that is mere speculation. The ADB has not advised me that these are the steps it takes and, for all I know, its investigation might have no steps at all in the name of bureaucratic efficiency.
The ADB maintains that it does provide me with updates about the steps it takes for its investigations, namely:
- a letter asking me to respond to a complaint so that it can conduct an investigation; and
- generally another letter about 18 months later advising me that it has finished its investigation and is referring the matter to the NCAT.
Obviously, the first letter is not an update about the ‘steps taken’ for the investigation because no investigation can be conducted until I provide a response.
Just as obviously, the last letter is not an update about the ‘steps taken’ either. It provides no information at all about any steps taken for the investigation and nor does is provide any of the usual things that investigations entail, such as findings, recommendations, results or conclusions. It also means that I have absolutely no idea what the ADB does with my responses, other than to seemingly ignore them entirely.
But lets not quibble over these small points and lets just go with the agreed facts. And the agreed facts are that the ADB is required to provide me with some kind of update at least every 90 days and that it admits that it has not done so. Hence, this statement from the Acting President last week:
“I apologise for the lack of correspondence from the ADB between 16 December 2015 and 21 July 2016, a period of over 7 months, during which time you should have been informed about steps being undertaken in relation to the complaints, in particular when your response was sent to the complainant on 26 February 2016.”
So there we have it. The ADB has broken its own laws and the Queensland-Resident-To-Be-Destroyed has not.
You will notice that this response is also an admission that the ADB likes writing to the complainant without copying me. In contrast, the ADB likes to copy Mr Burns in on the letters it sends me about his complaints. But let it not be suggested that the ADB engages in favourable treatment of its most frequent ‘client’ over plebs like me.
Actually, let’s not be silly either. That is exactly what I am suggesting and it’s rather proven by the fact that Burns gets a copy of my responses but the ADB never once sends me his.
Many people have asked me why I do not take legal action against the ADB and its individual officers for their conduct. All I can say to that is: patience is a wonderful thing and I am really looking forward to my day before the NSW Court of Appeal in November.
Finally, the Acting President of the ADB did offer a number of excuses as to why she and her cronies had breached the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977. At the top of the list was (surprise, surprise) the large number of complaints against me that it had received. I can also add that Ms Wing, in the paragraph immediately before the section in which she admits that Mr Burns had broken the ADB with his deluge of complaints, stated that it was not up to her to determine if Mr Burns’ complaints were vexatious.
This may be news to Ms Wing, but the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977 explicitly provides her with the power to decline vexatious complaints. So not only has Ms Wing broken the law that she is supposed to enforce, but she has also washed her hands of her responsibilities to decline vexatious complaints as well.
As I said earlier, I am looking forward to my day in court in November. And after it’s finished, I will do everything within my power to ensure that the ADB lives in interesting times…