Recently I made a formal complaint to the Anti-Discrimination board of systematic victimisation aimed at me and at our four children.

Back in the year 2003 I made our first formal complaints after documents produced under FOI showed evidence of bias and manipulation in relation to school applications and test scores pertaining to our children. Back then the Anti-Discrimination board wouldn't investigate our complaints saying that it wasn't against the law to discriminate against gifted children.

Eight years later and after continuing victimization and discrimination aimed even at our younger children and much distress we have documentary evidence that shows that I have been presented over the years as having been deemed vexatious by the Minister, amongst other things, by the person we allege is victimising our family when in fact we have a recent letter from the DET that says that I have never been deemed vexatious by the DET or the Minister.

Problem is that documents clearly show that complaints of bias and victimization aimed at our children over many years were covered up and ignored on the basis of lies presented by the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit.

The Anti-Discrimination board has said that it is limited in its scope and does not prohibit all possible types of discrimination or victimization and they will not investigate our complaints as only certain types of discrimination and victimisation is unlawful. This is despite the fact that the targets are innocent children.

How can the Anti-Discrimination board be allowed to discriminate and why are innocent children not protected?

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

Firstly I note that it is unsurprising that no supporters have yet responded. You can always pick a group suffering significant discrimination in a given epoch by the scarcity of external supporters when they complain about their injustice. It is only after a group, which formerly suffered discrimination, gain popular support and no longer experience significant discrimination that their increasingly pedantic or artificial causes are championed by external supporters. I am sorry to hear about the plight of your children.

In direct response to your questions, anti-discrimination boards are usually set up by legislation which prescribes their powers and activities. Thus the board itself is not the gatekeeper who does the discriminating.

The prescription of powers includes defining their area of operation to include particular groups. They have no power to assist other groups. In theory some discrimination in the literal sense of differentiating between things is necessary so that the board can be given the power to assist anyone. In practice laws (including laws setting up such boards) are made by politicians and thus (ironically) more powerful groups who can impact more easily upon votes are more likely to get included. This creates a situation where some groups who may need to generate creative methods to experience any prejudice get special protection while other groups who experience discrimination whilst going about their lives on a day to day basis do not enjoy any legal protection.

I believe that gifted children and their adult counterparts are a small minority in numbers and haven't fared well from the 60s cultural upheaval where change at any cost is valued and intelligence is usually devalued. Nor have their opinions, based on more thought and understanding in consequence of their strengths, fared well from information overload and the consequent sound byte society where opinions are formed based on whatever sounds better in 10 words or less even if the reality of an in depth consideration may be the opposite.

I spose Censorship is a topic not of a desired nature.

However, I am repeatedly suprised by the hypocrisy of persons of influence sitting in ivory towers peering down upon the public. These, in their slect positions proffer themselves to be ideological guides for society. They have powers, and can access information.

Take for example the employment network MAX-network. (Hello MAX) they are watching me as I type this letter.

Yesterday, I used one of their desktops to post a blog note on another site, and the contnet was of such a nature that I presume it infuriated the Femminist leadership of MAXnetwork.

They have since sought to block access to that particular site using their sophisticated Inet surfing profile and block software. This is an illegal act.

Not only that, but the MAXnetwork are funded by government to provide services to the public, and thus any instruments of the service are for the public, and not to be used for gains by the operators of the service (in a manner of speaking). The operators arer employed to provide services to the public, not to be sitting in ivory towers peering at people, and not to encapsulate the services on offer for their own personal gains.

So, MAXnetwork likes Censorship and moral controls eh, well, so does the Government they work in service of.

Thanks mjpb. The thing that I do not understand is why children are not protected from prejudice, bias, discrimination and victimisation. Surely all children should be protected - not just some children. Otherwise that allows for child neglect and psychological abuse!

The Anti-Discrimination board says the following in relation to victimsation http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_victimisation.

Their position is that if you have made a complaint and your are treated unfavourably then, unless you can prove that it is because of your age, carer’s responsibilities, disability, homosexuality, marital status, race, sex, pregnancy, transgender, and that it is because you made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination board then they will not help you or protect you no matter what evidence of bias, manipulation and misconduct that you have or no matter what is being done.

It is extremely disturbing to see that victimisation based on prejudice, malice, spite or even based on jelousy is not included in the list. You would have to question who they are protecting?

It just seems unreal that adults can bully, neglect, victimise and abuse children and target, defame and vilify a parent on the grounds that they do not like who they are or what they represent and that no Law will protect the innocent parties even if they are children.

The other thing is that when these 'so called' 'Investigatory bodies' do not invesigate complaints then people think that there is no case to answer and therefore they discredit you by not affording you any rights.....It is just so wrong and unfair. As law abiding citizens we should be entitled to rights and children should always be protected......

Not only do they close the door in your face and treat you as insignificant you are told that a decision under this section to decline a complaint in whole or in part is not reviewable by the Tribunal! How is that fair?

You are welcome.

They aren't protected due to the irony I highlighted above. However I understand that is not a literal question and agree it is not good.

You label it their position but as I said in the previous post they don't have the power. That is the source of the problem.

"You would have to question who they are protecting?"

There appears to be some redundancy in the list. Sometimes I wonder if that gives a clue.

It should be unreal but unfortunately it is contemporary Australia. There is less of a concept of natural justice and more of an empower whoever has the most might at the time approach.

"The other thing is that when these 'so called' 'Investigatory bodies' do not invesigate complaints then people think that there is no case to answer and therefore they discredit you by not affording you any rights.....It is just so wrong and unfair. As law abiding citizens we should be entitled to rights and children should always be protected......"

I can only imagine the frustration.

"Not only do they close the door in your face and treat you as insignificant you are told that a decision under this section to decline a complaint in whole or in part is not reviewable by the Tribunal! How is that fair?"

Clearly it is not fair. It is surprisingly that they don't highlight their lack of power. It almost seems like the people you dealt with enjoy saying no rather than empathise with your predicament and explain that they don't have the power.

Gadget that is an excellent example of the way things are going. Our government is currently trying to implement a censorship scheme that is modelled on the Chinese regime that will apply to all households and access points. They want to bring what these people did at that company to you, to everyone in Australia. The best answer is to end your association with the major parties permanently.