cont'd ...

The following link is an excerpt from Prof. Gillian
Triggs on the future of human rights in Australia.
Some of the Commission's achievements under her leadership
are also listed. She continued to do her job and speak
out, despite the attacks and pressures put on her to
resign. She continued nevertheless. That is something to
be admired. Many people would have simply walked away from
the job.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/prof-triggs-human-rights-australia

Foxy, "However I agree with the statement that the personal criticism that she's copped is undeserved"

For balance it is only fair to point out that very recently you were making pleas for the same person to be allowed to depart her role at the end of her time with some dignity. You said,

"Mistakes do happen from time to time - and I accept that.

As for her position as President of the HRC and what she should do? She has already informed the Attorney-General that she will not be staying after July when her term expires. I think it would be fair to allow her to leave with some dignity instead of turning all this into a political witchhunt."

'Has Gillian Triggs committed perjury a 3rd time?'
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7667&page=4

If Triggs had no case to answer you wouldn't have said that.

leoj,

You neglected to add that in an earlier post on page 2 of
that particular discussion I addressed Shadow Minister and
argued from the following link:

http://womensagenda.com.au/leadership/profiles/gillian-triggs-responds-to-malcolm-turnbull-s-attacks-on-the-hrc/

that, "Triggs term in office as the Human Rights Commissioner has
coincided with an unprecedented politicisation of human rights.
This is due in part to Australia's highly contentious treatment of
asylum seekers and also the possibility of amending the Racial
Discrimination Act - which is very much a concern."

We're told that Triggs' role has been well and truly in the
firing line."She has faced a sustained campaign of public
criticism. Her integrity and professionalism has been called
into question. She has been accused of lying, playing politics,
and even her personal life torn apart."

"And at every turn she has continued to step up and fulfill her
role. She has not backed down or packed it in. Miraculously
she has not succumb to any temptation to run away or fall
apart."

"She has stepped up day after day. One foot in front of the
other. And there's a powerful lesson for all of us in that."

Foxy,

There is a need for balance.

You ignore and are in denial of Triggs' shabby, unfair treatment of those QUT students, some of whom were bullied by the powerful AHRC into handing over large sums of money.

There are other serious concerns where Triggs' ethics are concerned, but what about you put yourself in the shoes of those QUT students and describe what it might feel like to have your rights and you future in the hands of this very powerful bureaucrat?

leoj,

There certainly is a need for balance.
I totally agree. That is why we need to
resort unfashionably to the facts and the
law before deciding which colour of outrage
suits the occasion.

The facts are given in the following link:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/17/gillian-triggs-defends-human-rights-commissions-handling-of-qut-18c-case

We are told that the Queensland University of Technology racial
discrimination complaint dragged on for more than three years without resolution because it was expected to be settled, not because of the
Human Rights Commission's processes. the Commission and
University have told a Senate committee.

Read the link to get the full story of what was involved.

Foxy,

No, that is NOT balance. All you are doing is loading up one side to defend the indefensible shabby treatment of those students and the trampling of their rights (and futures!) into the ground.

Gillian Triggs and the AHRC she headed should have lead protectors of the rights of those QUT students.

You were asked to put yourself in the shoes of the QUT students. Hopefully some compassion for them might have led to some new discovery and some balance. That can be done without taking sides. But you refuse to do that, why?