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.

James

I think you might find this is a religious thing. Maybe maybe not.

I read another thread Robert started where he was protesting about a bank being guilty of discrimination and promoting voilence toward men by women.

Mind you I think he was actually being serious. Poor chap.

You would have to be worried about whats happening to your country if you got too many of them.

AAJFA
What does that stand for? Some sort of small party?

Anyway I will point out to you that sexual abuse of ladies by men is a serious crime.

The reason they try to approach men on the subject is beause it is men commitiing these crimes.
'
So the only ones I can see being dicriminated against in that case are the victims.
Sadly there are many crimes and rapes especially now with this drug.

I am sure you must have seen it otherwise you would not have opended this thread.

Now regarding your first complaint had it ever occured to you that the person must of had a medical condition to be in that position in the first place.?

I know in some religions that is offensive beyond understanding.
Its certainly not very compassionate of you to have made a fuss its clear it is not done by a normally healthy person.
Perhaps you have an agenda do you?

So the only other question I have is somone with your high standards [ or different standards] is not a person in my view who would normally get out and let your hair down with a few beers and ROCK.
So what where you really doing at these nightclubs AAJFA?
I mean you dont seem to like ladies very much anyway so unless you were there to check out the guys.

What where you really checking out other than the mens toilets ?
And what does AAJFA Stand for?
Now if your fair dinkim you wont mind my question

To all,

My post was aimed at focussing on ADCQ, not me. I deliberately did not go to great lengths on the stickers because I was worried some people might get distracted by that. Unfortunately, that has now occurred.

Don't get me wrong; I like women. In fact, I am in a defacto relationship. My issue was only the approach these feminists were taking. Finger-pointing at all men is hardly an approach likely to work.

The thrust of my story is this: that ADCQ applies standards very selectively, even to the point where they sometimes break the law in accepting complaints. The complaint made against myself did not even allege that I had broken the law, yet it was still accepted.

You have to stop looking at this in terms of your own subjective view of fairness. ADCQ is supposed to apply the law, not their views of fairness, or yours, or mine.

In relation to the complainant against myself, I might like to add that the comnplainant was known to myself as an unstable trouble maker before the described incident, so that is why I did not at the time give her the benefit of the doubt. I still have doubts as to whether or not her disability caused her to do this.

As for my name, AJFA, look at my blog and you will find the answer.

Discrimination is an unfortunate thing.
Some people do not like you to disagree with their opinions and codes of ethic (or lack thereof) and use their dubious powers to dismiss you.
This is blatant discrimination and should not be tolerated for one second.

AJFA, I agree with you on some points, but not others. Have read both your links. It is unfortunate that privacy requirements prevent us knowing the details of the complaint against you, as the particulars can be very revealing. However, on the face of it, I agree that as a minimum there should have been a reply to you prior to any conciliation hearing, outlining exactly what part of the law you were alleged to have broken, in particular what the alleged discrimination was. Based on wht you are able to reveal, the only thing that I can come up with is discrimination on the grounds of a medical condition (although I suggest that those that suffer from incontinence do have steps available to them to help prevent unfortunate accidents).

I agree with you in relation to mens/womens clubs. I dont have a problem with these existing, where they operate in a private sphere, and no activities or propaganda about the other sex is involved. Eg gentlemens clubs that feature "exotic dancers" is not something that I would support, but men/women only gyms etc are fine (particularly as these will seek to cater to physical differences and different training requirements). Mens/womens support groups are a little more contentious - eg the husband of a female rape victim should not be prevented from attendance at support group meetings, as there is arguably much to be gained by him about his wife's perspective, although granted that many women may feel uncomfortable with any man present.

We need to apply a measure of understanding and commonsense in relation to all of these sort of issues.

The whole issue with this discrimination topic is the fact that bullying, served out of prejudice, malice and spite, is not against the law. Discrimintion against those who are seen as superior is also not against the Law.

If those who are bullied or targeted as a result of jelousy, malice and/or spite are not protected by the Anti-Discrimination Act/board then who is the Discrimiation Act protecting and what is the boards role?

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/
Our children deserve better

I've gotta agree with James. If it was attacking all men, then fine. But the fact of the matter is, some men (even though it's a small number) have used drugs to rape women. It's not discrimination to try and prevent this from happening again.
You may feel it's treating all men like this by putting posters up, but I don't see it that way and even if that extrapolation was a reasonable one, perhaps it would be worth it if it dissuades further rapes.
In relation to the hearing, I agree you should have been informed.
On a side note, it's rather interesting watching everyone impress their own causes onto a discussion.
PALE leaps in to have a dig at R0Bert, despite the fact that he hasn't even posted here, then Jolanda jumps in to have another dig at the education system that had the temerity to see her children as less than wondrous prodigies...

I think there is a little miscommunication here, and it probably results from my legal background more than anything else. I sense that many people are debating these issues from the standpoint of fairness, which is fine, while I am arguing in terms of law, because that is the way I have been trained.

The scandal I am exposing is the fact that even though I had clearly not contravened the law, a complaint against me was accepted. Complaints should not be accepted when there is no legal basis behind them. I did not commit any form of discrimination under the Act, as I did not exclude this person from employment, access to facilities etc - the stuff outlawed in the Act.

In relation to fairness, I have said enough for you all to judge my conduct morally. In fairness to myself, I did not at the time know of the complainant's disability, however what I did know of her suggested that she was not of good character.

To repeat, standards of fairness are subjective and debatable. The scandal here is that ADCQ deliberately disregarded the law when choosing to accept my complaint. That's how ADCQ is at fault.

TRTL, yes its a bit like those RTA ads (if you've seen them), re references to small "equipment". Seems like some have taken offence to it, but really only those that speed are being targeted. Same with stickers about drugs and date rape. I have trouble seeing that its a feminist attack against men in general, particularly when the warnings that go out to women on the same topics stress being careful of your drink, not being careful of men in general. Got to put these things in perspective!

Again Country Gal, you totally miss the point.

The point is about ADCQ accepting an absurd complaint agsint me, not rejecting a complaint I made.

Please everyone, before you type again read the words in this post again, otherwise you will drift even further into non-comprehension.

AJFA. You have to remember that the Anti-Discrimination board isn't properly doing their job but they have to look like they are doing something! So they choose to run these types of complaints so that they can register them on their records and make out like they are actually doing something.

They ignore the real discrimination complaints!

It is all for show, they don't care who they discriminate against so long as it isn't one of THEM!

my main concern is that their very selective accepting of complaints could be politically motivated. Which of course is a breach of the Public Sector Code of Conduct.

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I take the view that any “race” complaint is outside the powers of a State body to deal with as it falls within Subsection 51(xxvi) and the Constitution itself allows for race discrimination! (Personally, I oppose it)
As for the Commission acting outside its legislative powers, if it hasn’t got legislative powers then anything it does in that regard is ULTRA-VIRES and without legal force. Neither can I accept that any confidential provision then apply.
On television we have a woman hitting a man with a large fish. The Federal Government had an add, something to the effect “No means no!”, as to make clear that if a woman says No then it is No! Yet, we have Channel Ten showing a woman who says “Never take no as an answer, seriously”.
Obviously with the High Court of Australia (albeit I view wrongly) held that the WorkChoices legislation is within the powers of the Commonwealth then States hardly can legislate as to work environments and so discriminatory conduct cannot be with the States where it involves such employment under Commonwealth provisions.
We now have a Bond (underwear) girl lifting up her dress to see her underpants. Well that is only on television for millions to see, but if the same was done in a workplace environment by either sex then it would be regarded as sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct. Expose yourself on national television and you be paid for doing so, and they will replay it time and again for millions to see. Expose yourself on the street or in the workplace and you are likely to end up in prison!
“Bloody idiot” (Victoria) is all right to say on television but not for a child at school?
It seems that what we are doing is teaching people to expose themselves and then if they do it are made criminals. Teach them to do whatever else so they can be made criminals. As such our society is sick to accept this kind of conduct, television or not.
We-do-not-have-legislation-to-protect-the-community-but-rather-to-try-to-make-everyone-to-be-regarded-a-criminal!

Personally, I prefer women who are decently dressed!

It is true they groom everybody to appear like criminals, act like yobbo's, or look like terrorists (no smiling in passport photo's) and they do this so that the system can then act like they cannot easily identify those that do wrong and they can treat us all like potential criminals. Potential criminals do not get rights or protection, only actual criminals get them.....

I agree that women look so much better when they are properly dressed and they behave in a respectful way – as do men and that is what I teach my chidren. Sometimes my children get ostrasized because of it. Unfortunately that is the price that you pay for having self respect and morals.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Jolanda, while at times my children expressed themselves that I was too strict in pursuing proper attire and conduct, now that they are all adults they rather express to be glad I pursued this.

One of my daughters wrote me a card with the following;
QUOTE
Dear Dad,
hey, happy Birthday
Sorry, I didn't call you on the day. But I hope you had a very good day.
Dad you are my angel.
Who looks after me. Your love is with me always, wherever I may be. Your guide and you guard me. Your strength is always there. You're such a special father to me.
who's full of love and care.
I love you.
I really care for you.
I love everything you do.
You are the best, then all the rest.
Lots of love Rebecca.
xxxxxxx ooooooo
END QUOTE
Another daughter wrote in simular manner some years ago!
.
Seems she rather liked it that I was a caring (sole) parent!
.
I did teach them that you do not discriminate because of nationality, religion, colour of skin, etc, and I ended up with a mix of nationalities, religion and skin colours.
.
As a parent we always (in general at least) we seek the best for out children but in the end they make their own choices.
I have always made known to my children choose a job you are happy in. This, as when I was in charge of factories I found to often people unhappy and then spending their monies in the pub.
One of my sons quit school and did some labouring work. I did not complain. Albeit did explain he should keep his long-term future in mind. After doing an apprenticeship in motor bikes he then did an apprenticeship in motor cars and he makes known to me he heard what I had explained to him. He-respected-the-fact-that-I-did-not-demand-anything-but-left-it-him-to-make-the-choice.
Likewise with social-conduct towards others who may have a different background then ourselves we should recognise them for the human beings they are and if we do so we might just avoid a lot of discrimination occurring.

Turnrightleft
As the topic raised is Discrimimination I cant see the problem with Jolanda raising what she beleives was discrimination of gifted children in this thread.
It doesnt really matter if she has a case or not its on topic is my point.
Regarding the complaint and the bank discrimination claim [which bank] thats certainly not off topic either.
Its a thread that was strted here and if anybody wishes to go back and read it then I feel it may be of great interest to our thread host.
Its rather difficult to understand turnrightleft why you would alledge anybody was having a go at Robert or anybody else by mentioning to AJFA and others that there was a similar thread for them to read.
I will pop a couple of links up next time AJFA and Mr Garrett and be interested in your opinion.
One is actually something that should interest all of us as it regards posting on olo and the other about a bank.
Oddly enough they are both threads started by Robert so rather than accuse us of having a go at him turnrightleft its quite the opposite.
We are brining it into AJFAs thread because they are two threads which are both about discrimination.
I am trying to be fair to AJFA and other posters and poor old Jolanda who seems to have had a long hard track with her matter.
Well until then its too late in the evening right now to start looking for links - but next post.
I think it will put new life into the thread and AJFA will possible appreciate it.
Robert might care to join us turnrightleft. It might be interesting to look at all the angles. We could have our own little discrimination judge and jury with the posters here. Why not. Goood idea because like AJFA and Jolanda we dont like discrimination either. You turnrightleft posted many comments so you might like to particpate also.once
Mr Gerrit seems well advised and we look forward to hearing his opinions especially.