Firstly, I want to clarify my own position on discrimination. I believe that as a citizen of a free and allegedly democratic First-World Western nation, I have an inherent right to personal freedom of speech and freedom of association. However, if the law is an ass, such as all the current anti-discrimination statutes that are prevalent in all states, then I reserve the right to ignore them totally and go about my business in the way I see fit.
The NSW anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for me to discriminate against people on the grounds of sex, pregnancy, breastfeeding, race, age, marital or domestic status, homosexual, disability, transgender, association and a few more criteria. Now I don't have a problem with people of any race, however I reserve the right and the freedom to employ, associate with, or shun and ignore anybody I choose, regardless of the law. I will not be dictated to by some stupid politically correct bureaucrats, who demand that I must conduct business or associate with people with whom I do not want to deal - for whatever reason.
So if I choose not to employ a woman because I prefer a male for that particular position - or vice versa, a person who I consider is too young or old for the position, a homosexual with HIV because of the risk of catching AIDS in some way, a Nazi or neo-Nazi for his views on Jews and other "lesser" races or a Muslim because of his adherence to a doctrine that demands that he should kill me, then that is my absolute right as a person living in a supposed free democratic society. If I choose not to employ somebody for any reason and without giving a reason for this decision, that is entirely up to me and nobody else.
If I am prosecuted for exercising my personal freedom of choice, then I will fight it tooth and nail all the way to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. I will NOT be told whom I can or cannot associate with, employ or have dealings with.
The notion that Australia is a lucky country with people who are free and equal is a myth. In every facet of Australian society, laws and practices foster the disenfranchisement of certain groups on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, fame and financial status. However it is interesting to note that the greatest single group who are severely discriminated against on racial and legal grounds are heterosexual white Australians who make up the bulk of the population.
This sounds preposterous but nevertheless it is true. In this current climate of political correctness, it seems that every minority group, whether on a racial, religious or ethnic basis, has rights and privileges granted to them over and above anything allowed the majority. Any splinter group that can convince the government that it can sway the voting patterns seems to get favoured treatment at the expense of the majority.
Many of these groups have found political clout and are using it ferociously to promote their own agendas. They have formed various pressure organisations which have successfully pushed the government into passing laws enshrining their rights over and above those of the broader community. Organisations such as the Human Rights Commission (HRC) have been formed and given considerable power. Laws such as the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Racial Vilification Act are now in force, however it has been clearly shown that these organisations actively practise discrimination of every sort and the laws are themselves biased and blatantly politically correct.
For instance the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act makes it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals on literally any ground. On the face of it, this sounds reasonable until it is realised that it only works one way. The broad community is legally bound not to discriminate against homosexuals but homosexuals can legally discriminate against heterosexuals. This was shown in two recent court cases where a pair of lesbians took successful legal action against a hotel that ejected them for kissing, but when two heterosexual men were ejected from a gay hotel merely for being "straight", their legal action failed because the Anti-Discrimination Act only protected homosexuals, not the "straight" community. Such cases make a total mockery of this legislation because whereas it was supposedly passed to prevent discrimination, it actually protects certain minorities and enshrines their right to legally practice discrimination.
In another example of deliberate sexual discrimination by the Victorian Government, in May 2007, a Melbourne gay bar was granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act in a landmark ruling which will allow it to refuse entry to heterosexuals. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) deputy president Cate McKenzie claimed that allowing straight men and women into the club would defeat the purpose of the venue. "This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create," McKenzie said. She also stated, "Sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons." A spokeswoman for the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group stated that it was sad that members of the gay community had to go to the VCAT to preserve their rights.
This piece of institutionalised discrimination by the VCAT shows that it is nothing more than a vehicle for political correctness and that the so-called anti-discrimination laws in Victoria actually allow endemic discrimination, as long as those who claim to be victims are not white heterosexual Judeo-Christians. This ruling was made on the basis that allowing heterosexuals into this gay bar would destroy the atmosphere that the owners wish to create. What would then happen if a company wanted to open a bar and disallow entry to homosexuals on the basis that the heterosexual patrons felt uncomfortable in the presence of homosexuals? Such an application for exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act would be doomed to failure, simply because it is not politically correct to maintain the same protection for heterosexuals and it clearly demonstrates the unfairness and unjustifiable bias of the VCAT.
Many homosexuals have argued that they should be entitled to have havens where they can exclude heterosexuals, because heterosexuals have so many other places to go to. However this point is fallacious to the extreme. Of course there are far more many places for heterosexuals to go to, because proportionally there are more heterosexuals in the community than homosexuals. However, none of them have a legal right to exclude homosexuals, even if their patrons are homophobic and detest them. If Victoria actually supported equal rights, people of all sexual persuasions would have the right to go to any public place and legalised sexual discrimination would not raise its ugly head. Regardless of the bleats of homosexuals demanding special concessions, there should never be any laws that give anybody more rights than others on the basis of their race, religion gender or sexual preferences. The principle of complete equality without exception has to be rigorously upheld under all circumstances.
In August 2008, the City of Sydney Council declared that its recognised gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender precincts be free of homophobic abuse. Lord Mayor Clover Moore made a pledge to collaborate with police, businesses, gay rights organisations and the community to implement the homophobic-free zone, which includes Oxford Street and parts of Darlinghurst, King Street, Newtown, and Erskineville Road, Erskineville.
Moore stated, "Homophobic abuse is often a precursor to violence, While all areas of NSW are technically homophobia-free zones, this strategy recognises the importance and strength of the GLBT community in our city." Of course Moore did not implement protection for heterosexuals in that precinct, yet it is well-known that abuse from homosexuals against heterosexuals in that area is rampant.
This completely stupid ordinance just demonstrates the discrimination that is practised against the majority of the Australian population. What is more stupid is that such an ordinance will certainly not prevent somebody abusing a homosexual. It is merely a typical piece of grandstanding and posturing by a politician who is trying to stay in power by pandering to the homosexuals in her constituency to get their votes. It is illegal to abuse anybody, so this ordinance in itself is just a piece of political window dressing. However, it highlights the very discriminatory mindset of this woman.
Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett was at the centre of an ugly legal dispute with prominent homosexual activist Gary Burns over comments Kennett made allegedly comparing homosexual men to paedophiles. The Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW (ADB) investigated the remarks, which were the subject of a complaint by Burns. In one of the most ludicrous legal results, Burns successfully sued broadcaster John Laws over a 2003 on-air radio exchange involving the use of the word "pillow-biter".
Kennett's comments were published in a Victorian newspaper in 2008, after he backed a Melbourne football club that allegedly sacked trainer Ken Campagnolo because he was bisexual.
"You had this gentleman there who was obviously close to young men - massaging young men," Kennett was quoted as saying. "It ran an unnecessary risk, and that's why it decided it was best that he not perform those duties again. It's the same if you have a paedophile there as a masseur, right? And you might say the paedophile would do no damage but, once it was pointed out to you, you have a duty of care to those under-age children not to put them in a situation of risk."
The comments sparked outrage from the homosexual community and were picked up by Burns, who directed his lawyers to ask that the matter be heard in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT).
In a response to the ADB investigation, Kennett stated that the remarks had not been intended to offend. "The words I used were not meant to offend but to simply point out the fairly strong feelings of the head of the Bonnie Doon Football Club in discharging their responsibilities,'' he said.
Burns said the action would cost him nothing because pro bono lawyers working for the non-profit Public Interest Advocacy Group had taken up his case. He said that if the matter could not be heard by the ADT, he would file a civil suit in the Supreme Court. "He's suggesting that homosexual males are a risk to male children," Burns said.
Well guess what, Gary Burns? Some homosexual males ARE a risk to male children and there are countless instances of homosexual men arrested and jailed for paedophilia against male children. There's no escaping that fact and if Kennett or anybody else comes to such a conclusion and expresses it publicly, then too bad - it just happens to be the truth.
This website advocates the expression of truth and factual matters and I have no hesitation in agreeing with Jeff Kennett and stating here that some homosexual men are paedophiles. And if Burns wants to drag me before the ADB or sue me, he better be prepared to try and show that the massive numbers of male homosexuals convicted of paedophilia in the world are somehow a figment of my imagination - and he better have a lot of money.
As for the statement by Burns that the legal action would cost him nothing because of pro bono lawyers taking up his case, why am I not surprised? I wonder why Burns doesn't put his own money where his mouth is, if he truly believes that he has a just cause.
As for using the terms "pillow-biter", "shirt-lifter" or even "poofter" to describe a homosexual, these are all common words used by Australians and most people don't think that they are derogatory - however Gary Burns would probably take great umbrage at them appearing on this website. Well, too bloody bad. A lot of people object to homosexuals hijacking the word "gay" but they haven't dragged anybody to court over it.
But at the end of the day, Gary Burns dropped his case against Jeff Kennett. He alleged that the complex nature of jurisdiction under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act meant that the matter could be costly and thus could go on for many years and that he did not have the funds available to run such a complex case. So what happened to all those pro-bono lawyers that Burns bragged about? On top of that, his attempt at bullying Kennett into apologising to homosexual men or donating money to a gay and lesbian charity group also failed - and rightly so.
The Victorian Civil And Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has made some amazingly idiotic and discriminatory rulings since this politically correct institution was established, but it is hard to beat the completely moronic injunction that the VCAT placed on Christian pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot. These two preachers conducted a seminar on Islam in March 2002 in Melbourne that presented information on jihad from the Koran and compared the Bible and the Koran and talked about how to reach out to Muslims in love. Three Muslim converts attended parts of the seminar and then lodged a complaint, claiming that it incited hatred against Muslims in Australia.
The Islamic Council of Victoria, which had been deafeningly silent about the hate-riddled and racist diatribes emanating from radical Muslim imams such as Sheik Mohammed Omran and Nacer Benbrika, who was convicted on terrorism charges in September 2008, decided to drag Nalliah and Scot before the VCAT on charges of inciting hatred, merely because these two pastors had the temerity to read passages from the Koran that clearly demonstrated what a hate-filled racist anti-Jewish anti-Christian death-inciting vile piece of filth it really was. In probably what any reasonable person would consider to be the most illogical and biased ruling ever seen in Australia, Judge Michael Higgins ruled that Nalliah and Scot had breached the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and had vilified Muslims.
Judge Higgins then ordered Nalliah and Scot to place a statement designed by the Islamic Council of Victoria on their website and in newspapers and ordered it must be kept on the website for 12 months. In addition, Judge Higgins ordered that the pastors had 30 days to give an undertaking that they will not say or do anything that had the same or similar effect in the future, as the comments he found breached the Act and vilified Muslims. If they failed to do so, he would consider further orders and an injunction to order them to comply. Nalliah and Scot refused, stating that they would rather go to jail than comply with this ruling.
For people who have not read the Koran, here is just a mere sample of some passages taken from an English translation of this document, complete with references to where these passages occur. In actual fact, the Koran is riddled from end to end with such hateful racist and discriminatory filth.
So according to Judge Higgins, if non-Muslims have the temerity to read the above passages from the Koran in public and point out to others the obvious hatred and incitement to kill Jews and Christians, they are guilty of vilifying Muslims. It is more than obvious that if the Koran is a vile piece of filth, Muslims who follow, believe and support this doctrine are also vile pieces of filth, just like Nazis who follow the doctrines of Adolf Hitler are vile. I make no apology for my attitude regarding Muslims who believe in this garbage and follow its dictates, just like I make no apology for hating Nazis. As far as I am concerned, parts of the Koran are worse than Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. So what is there not to hate about Islam?
And what about the vilification of Jews and Christians in the Koran? What about the constant vilification of Jews and Christians by radical Muslim imams and sheiks? Why are they not dealt with by the VCAT? The answer is that the VCAT is a vehicle for promoting divisiveness, racism and vilification and it has managed to vilify Nalliah and Scot with this ludicrous ruling and cause them a lot of grief when they were merely pointing out the obvious truth.
Fortunately in a burst of sanity, on 14 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the appeal of Nalliah and Scot and ordered that the matter be heard again by the VCAT by a judge other than Higgins. The Supreme Court's Judge Nettle's conclusion was a damning indictment of Judge Higgins' original decision to convict Nalliah and Scot. Judge Nettle indicated around 20 separate instances where Judge Higgins misrepresented what Scot had said in his seminar on Islam in March 2002 - for example, Higgins wrongly claimed that Scot had said "Muslims are demons". Judge Nettle also pointed out that Judge Higgins failed to recognise the difference between hatred of the sin and hatred of the sinner and did not acknowledge that it is possible to criticise certain beliefs without inciting hatred against those who hold those beliefs.
The Islamic Council of Victoria was ordered to pay half of Nalliah's and Scot's legal costs for the appeal. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not go far enough, as it should have thrown this entire matter out and ruled that the VCAT not hear this complaint again. It also should have awarded full indemnity costs to Nalliah and Scot, who were guilty of nothing more than just telling the truth to their congregation.
Islam preaches hatred, murder, discrimination, subjugation and its followers put the vile exhortations of that filthy book the Koran into practice by committing atrocities and acts of terrorism against non-Muslims on a daily basis. Every person convicted in Australia on terrorism charges in the past 30 years is a Muslim. Judge Nettle stated that it is possible to criticise certain beliefs without inciting hatred against those who hold those beliefs. But what is wrong with hating the people who carry out the murderous edicts in the Koran? Why should people be legally restrained from inciting hatred against a pack of murderous fanatics? Remember that the Koran is just a bunch of words and if the followers of Islam did not pay any heed to those words, there would not be a problem.
People should hate the Koran for what it contains, but if you burn this piece of filth, it's gone. Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" was responsible for anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, but it was anti-Semitic people who hated and exterminated Jews. The same goes for Muslims. It is the Muslims that cause the problem. Muslims carry out all those atrocities by following the edicts in the Koran. Therefore it is Muslims who are to be reviled and detested because they are the ones causing the death and destruction and hatred of people of other religions.
Anyway, what on earth is so special about religion that it requires protection from vilification? All religions are based on a belief system with not a shred of evidence to support the existence of any alleged "Supreme Being" or "God" or whatever other term is used to signify such a mythical creature. However, for some completely illogical reason, religion, unlike any other topic, has to be respected and not ridiculed, as if it had some basis in fact and was somehow sacred. The same goes for those misguided fools, pastors, priests, rabbis, imams and the rest of the clergy who promulgate this rubbish. Well, the truth is that religion is not sacred, it's idiotic to the extreme, so obviously people who believe such stupidity are idiots.
Would people be prosecuted for ridiculing somebody who claims to believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? Of course not. Would any sane person not ridicule or abhor Nazism? Would any same person not despise and denigrate the doctrines of Osama Bin Laden or Pol Pot? Most normal people would not have one good word to say about Hitler or Bin Laden and their murderous philosophies and it would be unthinkable for anybody to be dragged in front of any tribunal for this, yet people are routinely prosecuted for pointing out or ridiculing the most idiotic, illogical, ill-founded, fantasies of stupid and gullible people - their religious beliefs.
Of course people are entitled to believe whatever they wish, however to make ridiculing of the belief of a mythical Skydaddy a prosecutable offence is completely preposterous. Religion is no more special or sacred than any other topic and people who believe in these fairy stories deserve to be regarded as lame-brained cretins. Even more so, religious leaders who earn a living from preaching these idiotic figments should be treated with utter contempt. They are either gullible fools who believe and promote this garbage, or they are merely crooks who are using the stupidity of their followers to bleed them of their assets.
Any person who is prosecuted under the ridiculous Racial and Religious Tolerance Act should merely demand that either the complainants produce their alleged God right there and then in the courtroom or admit that they are unable to substantiate any part of their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are worthy of ridicule. It's that simple. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish, but if those beliefs are stupid and cannot be substantiated, then they deserve whatever criticism and ridicule is heaped upon them, especially if they preach such nonsense at others.
The economics editor of Brookes, Gerard Jackson, completely exposed the insanity of Victoria's secret blasphemy regime that was disguised as anti-vilification legislation. He stated that in a ruthless attempt to intimidate critics, Muslim fanatics reported two pastors, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah to Diane Sisely, the Equal Opportunity Commission boss, for criticising the Koran.
Jackson's article, Muslim Bigots Impose Blasphemy Laws On Victoria, is probably the best and most cogent revelation on the insanity of the politically correct Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), which in fact does exactly the opposite to what its title purports. The truth is that the EOC, backed by the Victorian government, is nothing more than a thinly disguised vehicle for suppressing free speech and promoting racism and divisiveness.
It is interesting to note that in his fantastic article, Jackson threw down the gauntlet to the EOC, challenging this bunch of tree-hugging loonies to prosecute him under those anti-vilification laws by stating in writing that "The Koran is crap and Mohammed was a child-molesting, thieving, lying, murderous sadistic misogynist who couldn’t even spell his own name. How anyone with half a brain could be taken in by this loathsome thug beats me." So far, the EOC has not dared to act against Jackson, simply because if it did, Jackson would make mincemeat out of this pack of twits in public. Organisations such as EOC and VCAT only seem to act against people whom they consider cannot defend themselves.
The Nalliah and Scot case and the case of the anti-heterosexual gay bar in Melbourne clearly demonstrate that the VCAT, supposedly established to eradicate discrimination and racism, does exactly the opposite - it is a legal government vehicle that promotes and enshrines racism and intolerance. It allows certain groups to legally discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation, race and religion and also persecutes people for doing nothing more than comparing two religious tracts, as witnessed in the matter of Nalliah and Scot. The VCAT and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, also guilty of blatant discrimination, should be eradicated immediately, along with that other jingoistic politically correct organisation, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which often does the exact opposite of what its title suggests, by handing down rulings that actually deny human rights and equal opportunities to those who are not from vocal minority groups.
In June 2011, a homosexual venue in Collingwood won the right to ban women to ensure its patrons are not subjected to attempts by predatory females to turn them straight. VCAT granted Sircuit Bar in Smith St an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, allowing it to ban women because they make the men uncomfortable. VCAT stated that the venue primarily relied on the exemption to exclude women from the venue, other than on Sundays after 3:00pm.
This was to ensure that gay men were not subject to attempts to change their sexuality, which reduced their comfort in the venue, which included being fully accepted for who they are. Despite the ruling, a spokesman for the venue said the club had never had a problem with women trying to turn gay men straight and he indicated that VCAT would have to be asked why it made the ruling.
VCAT said it was important that gay men had a venue where they were not subject to disparaging comments. "For gay men who wish to display affection, those actions can readily lead to misunderstanding and disparaging comments which are not applied to heterosexual people. The applicants wish to provide a venue where it is safe and acceptable to openly express homosexuality." VCAT stated.
The Human Rights Commission did not wish to intervene in the decision, and VCAT said it did not contravene the Charter of Human Rights. Former Human Rights Commissioner Dr Helen Szoke said that she supported the exemption. "One of the objectives of the Equal Opportunities Act is to promote recognition and acceptance of everyone's right to equality of opportunity," Szoke stated.
This imbecilic ruling from the ultra-politically correct VCAT and supported by the other ultra-politically correct HRC merely proves that these two outfits legally institutionalise discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. VCAT indicated by this ruling that homosexual men had a right to feel comfortable by banning women from their hangouts, but where was the ruling that heterosexuals had the same sort of right to feel comfortable by excluding homosexuals from their premises?
Such an exemption will never emanate from the VCAT, simply because this pack of clowns will grant exemptions to everybody except the straight white mainstream. VCAT has ensured that Aborigines can discriminate against non-indigenous people, but not the other way around. Homosexuals can discriminate against heterosexuals, but not the other way around. Non-Muslims can be prosecuted for merely showing the Koran to be a filthy and evil document that fosters hatred and incites Muslims to kill non-Muslims and many other travesties, even when it is the bare-faced truth.
VCAT again proved what clowns they are with a ruling in July 2011 that allowed sex offenders and paedophiles to access In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) schemes so that they could have children. Although the Patient Panel Review blocked serious criminals from fertility treatment, VCAT overruled the panel to allow a three-time convicted sex offender to have the treatment on the grounds that he posed no threat to minors. One can only wonder what planet the members of VCAT are on.
Of course the HRC is right in there as well, fostering and supporting active discrimination against the wider community, while falsely masquerading as a bastion of equality and fairness. Nothing could be further from the truth. The HRC Commissioner showed herself to be a colossal hypocrite when she stated that the Equal Opportunities Act was to promote recognition and acceptance of everyone's right to equality of opportunity, yet literally in the same breath, she supported VCAT exemptions that actively enforced and promoted discrimination.
The utter truth is that VCAT, HRC and all the other anti-discrimination tribunals in Australia actually promote divisiveness and discrimination and enshrine these travesties in legality. They are a complete disgrace to the nation and that is about the best that can be said for them. If these bodies were to really operate to eradicate discrimination, there would not be any exemptions that permitted discrimination on any grounds whatsoever, politically correct or not.
The politically correct insanity of government agencies is becoming worse. Now that bunch of crazies at the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission (VCAT) is accepting discrimination claims based on the new crime of "lookism" which means that employers are employing or promoting people on the basis of their looks, allegedly over brains. The stupidity of this is that it very wrongly assumes that good-looking people don't have the brains that ugly, obese, smelly people have.
So selecting and promoting workers based on their appearance has joined racism and sexism as forms of workplace discrimination. In August 2013, VCAT revealed that dozens of workers have claimed discrimination on the grounds of weight, tattoos, hair style or even body odour. In the prior five years, 96 workers had alleged discrimination on the grounds of appearance, such as being ugly or blonde.
Another 107 people lodged discrimination claims on the grounds of obesity, 10 on being underweight, and 17 on their height. Body odour was the grounds for two discrimination claims, hairstyles for 38 claims and 22 claims related to for tattoos and piercings.
Researchers cite an Australian study that found good-looking men command an $81,750 salary, compared to $49,600 for men with below-average looks. The researchers also interviewed job placement agencies who warned that employers would look you up and down and make a hiring decision before listening to "what comes out of your mouth".
Professor Richard Hall, professor of work and organisational studies at the University of Sydney business school, said that appearance was prized above performance in the hospitality and retail sectors. "Boutique hotels and certain retail stores have a distinctive presentation not just with their infrastructure, but the style of staff," he said. "Personality and looks are seen to be much more important than previous experience or their qualifications to do the job." Obviously Professor Hall achieved his exalted academic position by being able to come to such blindingly obvious revelations that escaped mere mortals.
Australian Retailers Association executive director Russell Zimmerman said that stores wanted staff to fit their image. "Let's take a Just Jeans or Jeans West. I don't think they'd want my 85-year-old mother serving there - or she'd have to be pretty funky ," he said. But lawyer Kamal Farouque, principal of employment law at Maurice Blackburn said that "lookism" could be hard to prove.
But what is there to prove? Don't people have the freedom of association that the UN Convention of Human Rights provides? Don't people have the right to select employees with whom they feel comfortable? Should an employer give a job to some fat, obese person with body odour, especially if that person is going to deal with the employer's clientele? Of course not.
This whole look-ism idiocy should be relegated to the garbage bin of political correctness, along with fat-ism, size-ism, age-ism, sex-ism, race-ism and hetero-ism. Nobody should ever be dictated to as to whom they choose to employ or promote. We do not live under a repressive Stalinist regime, although when one looks at agencies such as VCAT, one has to wonder about this very discriminatory pack of clowns, whose many decisions actually entrench discrimination.
In Australia it is an offence to advertise employment nominating or giving preference by nationality, gender or race, but guess what? Employers - federal and state governments being the worst offenders - are legally permitted to give preference to Aborigines. Is this racism? Of course it is. In recent times the NSW Government has institutionalised and legalised racism by exempting Aborigines from having to hold fishing licences while forcing white people to buy them or be fined if caught fishing without them. This is a glaring example of government reverse racism and Apartheid, nothing less.
For instance, the NSW Government has institutionalised and legalised yet another act of racism against non-Aboriginals. People who wish to become teachers in the public school system of NSW will find this on their application forms:
So if a Caucasian and an Aborigine apply for a teaching position and have identical qualifications, the Aborigine will be given the job purely on the basis of race and nothing else. This is utterly abhorrent and there is absolutely no possible excuse or justification to institutionalise racism in such a way. This very same NSW Government has set up the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) to punish anybody who is found to be racially discriminating, yet it has legislated to allow blatant racial discrimination against non-Aboriginals with impunity.
This is why the ADB should be treated with utter contempt and any attempt by the ADB to persecute a white person for racial discrimination should be ripped to shreds, merely by proving that if it is good enough for the NSW government to practise institutionalised racial discrimination, it is fair enough for a citizen of the realm to do the same.
There are many more laws that discriminate against Caucasian people in favour of Aborigines, such as the one enforcing fishing permits. A permit costing a sum of money is required to be held by people who fish in freshwater in NSW, however Aborigines are exempt from this requirement. This ludicrous piece of unfairness is only one among a number of legally enshrined privileges that allow Aborigines to do things that are forbidden to everybody else and this is discriminatory on the basis of race. Aborigines can set up companies that only employ Aborigines and are permitted to reject job applicants purely on the basis that they are Caucasian, however woe betide any company that refuses jobs to Aborigines on the basis of their race, because this is highly illegal.
One great myth that is upheld by our stupid anti-discrimination laws is that certain religions are considered to be races. This preposterous notion is actually aided and abetted by certain religious groups. For instance, many Jews consider that they belong to the Jewish race, which is nonsensical, simply because there is no such thing as a Jewish race.
Race is totally dependent on genetic factors and nothing else. White Caucasians cannot convert to become Negroes, no matter what they believe in, yet Gentiles can convert to being Jews, if they submit to the mumbo-jumbo that this process entails. For instance, the late US vocalist and negro Sammy Davis Junior converted to Judaism and white Caucasian Elizabeth Taylor also converted to Judaism, yet to assert that because of this, both Sammy Davis and Elizabeth Taylor are of the same race is ridiculous and stupid. Even more stupid would be to assert that they were of the same race as a Mongolian Jew.
Jewish doctrine considers that a person born of a Jewish mother is automatically Jewish. This presupposes that the belief in a certain variety of Skydaddy is somehow transmitted from mother to offspring by genetic means. Of course this is completely preposterous and without one shred of factual foundation. A newborn child has no religion, nor any concept of a mythical god, especially the variety of god to whom his parents may subscribe. That child will only learn about religion when it is indoctrinated into it by his parents, but certainly did not inherit that religion by virtue of genetic transmission.
But it is easy to demonstrate that religion is not a race. Even without conversion, a Singaporean Asian born to a Jewish mother is certainly not of the same race as an Ethiopian Negro born to a Jewish mother. Whether Jews like it or not, Judaism is not a race and never will be, just like Christianity or Islam are not races, but merely religions. However, this completely illogical and unfounded belief has led to the Jews being hated and reviled throughout the world, not just for their stupid assertion that they are the "Chosen People", but for their insistence that they are a completely separate race, based on nothing more than their belief in an imaginary friend.
In fact, the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews because Adolf Hitler completely and fallaciously asserted that they were a separate race, but the worst part of it was that most of those Jews were indoctrinated to believe that their religion was actually a race, thus abetting Hitler's totally erroneous and murderous philosophy. To this very day, most Jews consider that their religion is a race, even though this is completely fallacious and provably so.
The United Nations (UN) does not define racism, however it does define racial discrimination. In a completely misguided and patently false definition, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states:
This is just sheer idiocy and it is just WRONG because the UN defines discrimination based on religion and national origin as being racial discrimination. For a body such as the UN to assert that somebody's delusional belief in an imaginary being is immutably connected to their inherited genetic makeup is preposterous. Equally as stupid is the UN's assertion that somebody's nationality, which is merely a political status, is immutably determined by their genes.
The above photo depicts the following Christian clergymen:
Nobody in their right mind could state that these Christian clergymen were of the same race, yet for the purposes of its completely irrational and illogical racial discrimination definition, the UN considers these people to be of the same race because they are of the same religion. By the same flawed reasoning, the UN could declare that the Earth was flat and rule that anybody denying this would be guilty of some cockamamy discrimination crime.
But this is exactly what happened in the not too distant past, where renowned scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for stating that the Earth was round. In those days, the Catholic Church was the all-powerful body dictating international law, similar to what the UN is today. But the UN is making the same type of factual error as the Catholic Church made in the past. By its racial discrimination definition that religion is a race, the UN is not only provably wrong, but illogical and idiotic.
Here is another example that clearly proves that religion has nothing to do with race. The above collage of photos immediately shoots down in flames any notion that Islam is a race. Here are six Muslims of six different races, from left to right, top to bottom, they are:
So how on earth can anybody declare that Islam is a race, when there are Muslims of a myriad races in the world and the only thing in common is their belief in a mythical god called Allah? Anybody who claims that Islam is a race and that criticising or denigrating Islam is racism is completely deluded. The worst aspect of this is that even governments and the UN equate religion with race and they are obviously very wrong. Anybody who is dragged before a court or tribunal charged with racism because he denigrated Islam can prove in a minute that Islam is not a race, therefore accusations of racism on that basis are unsustainable - and really stupid too.
Yet another example that clearly proves that religion has nothing to do with race is demonstrated here. The above group of photos immediately shoots down in flames any notion that Judaism is a race. Here are six Jews of six different races, from left to right, top to bottom, they are:
Nobody in their right mind could allege that these six Jews are of the same race. Yet Jewish people believe that there is such a thing as a Jewish race and any Jew is a member of this race, no matter what their DNA happens to be. The other completely preposterous thing that Jews believe is that if a person is born of a Jewish mother, he is automatically Jewish. How stupid is that? Do these people really believe that a newborn infant has any concept of religion, God and all that other claptrap? Of course not.
This Jewishness By Birth is just a mechanism that Jews use to try and keep people in their faith. Obviously those kids born of Jewish parents will be brainwashed into the Jewish religion at an early age when they are most malleable and become Jews, but certainly not because of their race. But most other religions do the same. People born of Catholic parents will become Catholics. People born of Muslim people will become Muslims. People born of Hindu parents will become Hindus. Why? Because they are brainwashed into it, that's why.
So if a black Ethiopian from Addis Ababa and a white Russian from Moscow both believe in the Jewish version of a mythical God, then under the UN definition of racial discrimination, they are both of the same race. Apart from the good old eyeball test, as in just looking at the two candidates, a simple DNA test would quickly prove that they were from completely disparate races.
Of course any rational person knows that religion and nationality has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race, therefore the UN definition is literally a piece of utter rubbish and not worth the paper on which it is printed. The problem is that many religious groups use the terms "racism" and "racist" as a psychological weapon against people who criticise their doctrines or their irrational belief in imaginary friends.
What the UN should have done is to remove the word "racial" from its definition of discrimination and that would have transformed this idiotic clause into something worthwhile, not a completely erroneous and illogical fallacy.
In Australia, a number of Muslim groups have taken action in various tribunals against people that they claimed were racially vilifying Islam. In other words, these Muslims were asserting that Islam was a race. This alone should have nullified their claims of racial persecution or vilification, simply because Islam, like Judaism and any other religion, is nothing more than a belief system, whereas race is genetic. A person is stuck with their race, no matter what they believe, but Jews, Muslims or any other religious believers can discard their religions in the blink of an eye.
The problem is that in this age of political correctness, various tribunals and courts have played along with this completely false notion that religion is race and have made rulings on the basis of racial discrimination against people who criticised aspects of a religion. This problem needs to be addressed urgently, as it makes a mockery of immutable biological fact. Any person who is indicted for racial vilification by criticising religion should have no trouble in beating such preposterous and completely illogical allegations.
For example, in France in 2008, the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA) took legal action after it found a Paris store selling T-shirts printed with the phrase "Jews forbidden from entering the park," in German and Polish. A Chinese woman and her daughter, who run the store in the multi-ethnic Belleville neighbourhood of Paris, were later arrested and are facing possible charges of incitement to racial hatred, judicial officials said.
Although those T-shirts may have been highly offensive to Jews and other people, the fact that the sellers could be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred is just ridiculous and illogical, simply on the basis that Judaism, like all religions, is NOT a race. Obviously the French laws completely discount this immutable fact of genetics and are promulgating the completely erroneous premise that belief in an imaginary friend is racial and is transmitted by DNA.
Many civil liberty groups such as the NSW Council for Civil Liberties seem to do the exact opposite of their stated aims, by exerting pressure on any person or organisation that they deem to have been politically incorrect. For instance, the Nestlé Company ran an advertising campaign using images of an obese man, a boy scout, a toothless granny and an ethnic looking woman, insinuating that they were not "cool" until they ate a Frosty Fruit iceblock. The campaign was very obviously devised to be humorous but the politically correct brigade, completely devoid of any sense of humour or reality, complained that this advertisement was discriminatory.
The simple truth is that these stereotypes are certainly not "cool" and no amount of pressure will change human nature and its perceptions of certain types of people or certain occupations. An obese person is not cool. Neither is a toothless granny. However, in attempting to stifle people's right to their opinions and thoughts, some self-appointed civil liberty organisations are literally oppressing the freedoms of one group to uphold the very nebulous perceived rights of another.
The legal system, while purporting to deal with all people equally, is shown to be a farce when some legal judgements are examined. For instance, a number of high profile celebrities have received virtually no penalties for committing traffic offences that would have resulted in severe sanctions against "normal" members of the public who committed the same or even lesser offences. The following examples prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there is one law for the rich and another totally different law for the poor.
Considering the seriousness of these offences, would such ludicrously negligible penalties have been imposed on an average person of little wealth or influence? Most probably not, if one examines the day to day operations of any local court, where there seems to be a huge difference in penalties handed down to those who can afford lawyers and those who can not. There have been countless instances where people with lengthy drink-driving histories were continually let off the hook because they appeared in court with high-priced lawyers, whereas often people who had committed their first drink-driving transgression and represented themselves in court were convicted and lost their licence on the spot. This observation merely reinforces the notion that there really are different laws for the rich and poor, as these few following examples really demonstrate very adequately.
If these examples do not adequately demonstrate the blatant discrimination in the application of the law to the rich and famous, as compared with the great unwashed masses, the following case clearly highlights the unfair way members of the general public are being treated.
It is a sad indictment of our perverted judicial system that an expensive solicitor can make all the difference to a person facing court on serious traffic offences, whereas poor people who cannot afford such luxuries as legal representation are at the mercy of biased magistrates, whose rulings often defy logic or natural justice. Jeffrey Gyllies literally had the book thrown at him because he had the temerity to defend himself in court, however convicted serial drink-driving offender Mark Baker did not go to jail after being caught driving while drunk for the third time. With his solicitor articulating his case, Baker was merely fined $1251 and disqualified from driving for a short period of time. One can sit in any local court and watch self-represented people receive harsh penalties while repeat offenders often walk scot-free from the most horrific and serious offences because they have their pet lawyers in court with them, making up the most preposterous excuses why their clients should be let off.
Governments and the judiciary are totally responsible for such travesties and instead of ensuring that everybody is treated equally in every respect, regardless of their social or financial status, they enact laws that enshrine the wrong sort of discrimination and political correctness. Until logic and sense prevails and the rights of the common man are upheld at the same level as those of minority groups and the rich, the myth of Australia being the land of equality and opportunity will be perpetuated.