Unfortunately, only some of the particulars of this story can be shared with you, because there is a legal requirement of confidentiality when a complaint to the anti-discrimination Commission is made.

A complaint was made against me in 2004. When I first found out that the complaint was made, I was very surprised. Nowhere did the complaint allege that I had breached the Anti-Discrimination Act or any other law.

In my first response then, I asked that the complaint be dropped. I never received a response to this request, even though it was a manifestly reasonable one. As a result, I was legally required to attend two conciliations.

The above story demonstrates the political bias prevalent within the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission. A frivolous complaint against myself to the Commission was accepted by the Commission, in spite of the fact that it clearly fell outside the Act it is supposed to administrate.

For the full story: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/09/commission-of-discrimination.html

I read your blog and correct me if I am wrong but did you say you made another complaint earlier about girly pictures in mens loos/?
Something about pictures of naked woman stuck up which personally I hate being harresment to men?
I did read that correctly yes/?

I've just read the same blog and see it as feminist stickers in male toilets, not girly pictures. What if male activists had put stickers in women's toilets? There would be a major uproar.

Anyway, the vilification of men is OK in the eyes of the law as can be seen with the constant media attacks - the adverts with the stupid male and smart female - the insurance company that offers cheaper car insurance to female drivers because (wait for it) they are better drivers (eh?). 'Australia condemns violence against women', what about violence against men? And so the list goes on.

All anti-discrimination offices are biased. If you're a white hetero-sexual male, you are the enemy.

I must addmitt I am rather confused. What are these tickers advertsing.
I thought it pin up pics. There is very little info to go by here.

Thank you for your questions.

The stickers were feminist ones posted in the male toilets, and they read: "If you drug women in order to have sex with them, you're a loser".

I felt that it vilified every bloke who dropped into the toilets for a pee. I still do think that the stickers implied that every bloke is a potentail rapist, and are, for that reason, offensive.

Anyway, the ADCQ rejected the complaint, even though it would have accepted a complaint about girly pictures being put up in a workplace. In my personal view, pictures of pretty young females are far less insulting than stickers that warn you not to date rape, but I guess that's just me.

In relation to women drivers, I have no problem with them getting cheaper insurance if they are statistically less likely to have accidents. However, that also means that most people to be considered for security guard positions should be male.

For my other story on ADCQ, click here: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/09/anti-discrimination-commission-found-to.html

AJFA,

I'm sorry, but I think the only people those stickers discriminate against are the sad little sods who feel it is necessary to drug women to have sex.

If the stickers had said "If you have a penis, then you are a loser" then you would have a case.