Hateful conduct says Twitter – You be the judge


I asked Twitter to reconsider their initial judgement, but they came back and confirmed their decision. I haven’t had an issue with them before, and I can’t see even a hint of hate here. Well, not unless the reader was a male feminist or something nasty like that. What do you think? I’m all ears

Here’s a link to the blog post mentioned in the screen-save provided above.


Please support this conference regarding false allegations and law reform

The justice system and legal reform are pivotal factors to be addressed in moving towards true gender equality, and I mention this in a number of my blog posts, including:

On false accusations by women/girls against men/boys

Gender inequality within the criminal justice system

Which leads me to the focus of my post today … have you heard about the ‘Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference‘ to be held at Rushcutters Bay, Sydney, Australia on 31 August 2024?

So, what on earth has happened to the presumption of innocence in Australia?

  • How can accused men receive justice in a system where police and prosecutors refer to complainants as “victims” or “survivors”?
  • Over the last six months, five NSW District Court judges have spoken out about insufficient evidence supporting cases of men accused of sexual assault.
  • Now the NSW public prosecutors are conducting an audit of all current sexual assault cases.
  • Legal rights of men accused of domestic violence are under siege after activists falsely claimed an epidemic of domestic homicide – despite the Australian Institute of Criminology just announcing a 30-year decline in domestic homicide rates.

Care to learn the true facts – from legal experts, law professors, statisticians, whistleblowers, victims of injustice, media analysts – exposing how ideology has captured our justice system and tossed aside the basic principle of equality before the law?

“The time is right. Equality before the law no longer exists in Australia. The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside – totally discarded by our biased media and undermined by legislative tampering with basic principles of justice.

For decades our justice system has been tilted to favour “victims”, with the result that men and women are treated very differently – by police, the Family Court, judges and juries in the criminal law system. 

But gradually the rot in the system is being exposed. Right now, 400 current sexual assault cases are being audited by NSW public prosecutors to determine whether, as six judges have claimed, such cases are being pushed through to trial with insufficient evidence.

We are seizing the moment, and bringing together real experts to expose what is going on here. And to talk about what’s needed to achieve a fair system.

Our conference supports all victims of violence and sexual assault and that requires telling the truth about these complex issues. All victims, whether male or female, deserve policies based on up-to-date accurate data and truthful analysis. Flawed analysis can only lead to flawed policy which contributes to the ongoing crisis in our justice system and the current misleading public narrative on these issues. 

Most importantly, the current high rates of false allegations are making it difficult for genuine victims to be heard. These victims deserve a better system.” 

The conference is being hosted by Australians for Science and Freedom, an organisation promoting better institutions that embed respect for freedom and scientific approaches for society’s problems. To find out more about Australians for Science and Freedomclick here.
The event is being sponsored by Mothers of Sons, an organisation of mothers fighting to expose the injustices their sons have faced in our biased criminal and family law systems. To find out more about Mothers of Sonsclick here.
Further reading:
Women are great at coercive control, by Bettina Arndt (10 July 2024)
Drunk sex and consent, by Bettina Arndt (14 June 2024)
Banning our conference, by Bettina Arndt (12 April 2024)


Another Australian domestic violence inquiry (2024)

I just read an ABC article entitled ‘Expert panel to tell government how to prevent violence against women and children‘ (28 May 2024).

The article begins by informing us that:

“A panel that includes strong critics of current government strategies to prevent violence against women and children will meet for the first time today” (28 May 2024). The panel will hand down its findings between July and September 2024.

Apparently “the federal government has faced significant criticism from the violence response sector following the federal budget” which promised, amongst other things, a rapid review of what’s currently being undertaken to combat DV.

“The rapid review will cost $1.3 million over two years and will be led by Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin, director of the Commonwealth Office for Women Padma Raman, and secretary of the Department of Social Services Ray Griggs.” 

“And also making it not a women’s issue but an issue where we focus on the perpetrators of that violence.” Because all perpetrators are male, right?

“The group will consult with the states and territories, the national violence prevention organisation Our Watch, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) and the National Women’s Safety Alliance.” 

Two of these groups have blocked me from accessing their social media accounts – that’s a positive sign, right? (#sarcasm). So the group will be consulting widely – just not with any men’s or father’s groups, for example. Oh, but of course they’ll have a couple of token male feminists on board to present that winning sparkle of #inclusion and #diversity.

Nothing in the ABC article provides even a coy hint about the existence of ‘elephant in the room’ things like female perpetrators, male victims and/or bi-directional violence.

Nothing in the ABC article demonstrates that things have been learnt as a result of the umpteen earlier domestic violence enquiries? (Click here then scroll down to public inquiries)

Nothing in the ABC article suggests that the new approach will involve anything other than throwing more money at feminist NGO’s, who will – as sure as God made little green apples – come back the following year to demand that the government “gets serious” and “provides real funding support”? Nothing

#Sigh #FacePalm

See also the following related blog posts:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

Was there a surge in domestic violence during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Public events & domestic violence myth

Australian taxpayer funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)



The ‘Safe and Equal’ organisation

“Safe and Equal is the peak body for specialist family violence services that provide support to victim survivors in Victoria. We are an independent, non-government organisation that leads, organises, advocates for, and acts on behalf of our members – with a focus across the continuum from primary prevention through to response and recovery.” (Source)

Safe and Equal Inc was formerly known as the ‘Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria Inc’ – see their organisational history here.

Safe and Equal Inc. appears to have a pronounced feminist outlook. This means for e.g. that men are viewed (only) as perpetrators of domestic violence and women as their victims. This page in their website lists various submissions and policy papers prepared by them.

Safe and Equal notes that “A newly established partnership with ‘The Men’s Project’ was a positive step in focusing on an emerging need to assess the role of men, boys and masculinities in prevention–developing work that will remain a priority for capability building across the workforce over the next year” (Annual Report, Page 34). The Men’s Project is run by Jesuit Social Services. The Jesuits are known to be generally most supportive of the feminist movement. (See also)

The four priorities of Safe & Equal are listed on page 6 of the latest Annual Report.  ‘Building a strong peak organisation‘, is one of these nominated priorities. Reducing the incidence of domestic violence, on the other hand, is not.

Their entry in the charity register is located here.

Their Twitter account is at @safe_and_equal

There are nine directors (none of whom are male), and whilst the organisation has more than 90 staff, they do not appear to employ any male staff (Annual Report, page 38).

Both their Annual Report and their Financial Statement, for the year ending 30 June 2023 are available here. The Financial Statement shows annual receipt of government grants totaling $7,135,582 and ‘total revenue and other income’ of $8,152,510 (page 15). The corresponding figures for the preceding financial year are $3,592,114 and $7,091,095.

The ‘Remuneration paid to key management personnel’ is listed to be $1,053,072 in the last financial year (Financial Statement, page 18). The matter of either who, or how many staff, fill such roles is not stipulated. Indeed several items normally addressed in an Annual Report do not seem to be present here. Examples include the number, seniority and remuneration of staff, contractors and consultants, and the nature of expenditure generally.

Footnote: I’ll expand this post after I’ve had time to digest some/all of the policy papers in their website.

Gamma Bias on steroids: A submission concerning the development of an International Gender Equality Strategy

Here is my submission concerning the development of an International Gender Equality Strategy. Oh, and DFAT = the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This version was completed on 13 September 2023.

Dear Sir/Madam

DFAT advises that it has invited public submissions in order to hear from people and organisations, and to inform the priorities for the proposed Gender Equality Strategy. Thank you for providing this opportunity for me to do just that.

DFAT suggests that four main questions to be considered when preparing a submission are:

  1. What are international gender equality priorities?
  2. What are the most effective approaches for achieving gender equality globally?
  3. How can Australia best support efforts to achieve gender equality internationally?
  4. What should the government/ DFAT consider when developing the new international gender equality strategy?

I think I’ll focus on point 4. I note too your assertion that the Government is committed to being a global leader on gender equality, and that the new International Strategy is intended to recognise gender equality as being central to Australia’s foreign policy, international development, humanitarian action, trade and security efforts.

To support this commitment, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises that it intends to develop a new International Gender Equality Strategy, in order to:

  • guide Australia’s actions to protect and promote the human rights of all women and girls*.
  • align with the commitments to gender equality made in the region by the Pacific Islands Forum, ASEAN and APEC. It will reflect global commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, for example, on gender equality, climate change and human rights.
  • identify the opportunities for Australia, our region and our world for stability, security, prosperity and safety in achieving gender equality and the full and equal participation of all in our societies.

And as for the human rights of ‘all men and boys’*? Are they not human or simply not important? This seems rather reminiscent of another federal agency I wrote to recently. Now who were they? (Reference: https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/inquiry-into-australias-human-rights-framework-2023/)

“The new International Strategy will reflect the Government’s commitment to achieve gender equality in Australia’s forthcoming first National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children* 2022-2032, and Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-31” … “DFAT will also draw on the views and priorities shared in public submissions provided to inform Australia’s International Development Policy and Southeast Asia Economic Strategy.”

(Source: https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/gender-equality/new-international-gender-equality-strategy)

And as for a national plan to end violence against men and boys*? Sound of crickets (Reference: https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/)

Just by way of background, the latest DFAT annual report that is available online is 2021-22. This shows that the percentage of ongoing staff in that department who are female is approx. 60%, which is consistent with the Australian federal public service overall. And no need to stress, some agencies have been further out of balance. Take WGEA for example (Reference:  https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/weve-set-a-target-of-having-10-of-our-senior-management-team-female-by-2017/)

I shall begin by considering a central facet of this exercise, this being the notion of ‘gender equality’.

“Gender equality is when people of all genders have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. Everyone is affected by gender inequality – women, men, trans and gender diverse people, children and families. It impacts people of all ages and backgrounds.” (Source: https://www.vic.gov.au/gender-equality-what-it-and-why-do-we-need-it)

This definition of the term, as with most others, implies that an equivalent amount of attention might be expected to be given to, for example, men and boys in the community. And yet one thing that quickly strikes a reader of related reports and media releases is the almost complete lack of attention given to men and boys and the issues faced by them. DFAT’s reports are no exception.

To consider an example of this, let’s look at one particular item within the DFAT website. It’s entitled ‘Australia’s international support for gender equality’. The term ‘man’ features once in this report, and ‘boy’ not at all. In stark contrast ‘woman’ features 121 times and ‘girl’ 19 times. Thus men and boys, and their myriad issues and perspectives appear to be ‘missing in action’.

(Source: https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/gender-equality/Australias-international-support-for-gender-equality)

It is consequently quite farcical to suggest that this, or the plethora of documents like it, demonstrate genuine commitment to gender equality. What it does do, is to reflect a prevailing reality of a marked gender preference towards women. This preference is actively sought after by followers and devotees of feminist ideology. And they do not tolerate alternative views.

Some source material regarding feminism and its propensity to stifle debate regarding alternative perspectives on gender now follows:





Unfortunately this marked gender imbalance in favour of women/girls is also reflected in the amount of funding support provided for gender-related issues and initiatives in both the Australian domestic and international arenas. This issue is discussed in the following items compiled by me:



#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the Review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012

Is the pronounced influence of feminist doctrine appropriate in Australia’s dealings with other countries?

I would suggest that ‘no’, it is certainly not. Regardless of how one feels about the validity and usefulness of feminist beliefs in Australia, foreign countries are different places. Feminism has never been raised as an issue within the Australian political system – and subsequently adopted as a matter of policy. It is merely something that a small minority of Australians believe to have merit, and who push strongly for greater and greater female privilege to occur.

Other countries have different histories and different cultures and deserve respect, and to be allowed to make their own choices with regard to gender issues in the absence of carrots or sticks applied by the Australian government acting on behalf of the feminist lobby.


Feminists aiming to strengthen their foothold in Thailand

‘Feminists and Yellow Fever’ by Willard Losinger https://sexualobjectification.blogspot.com/2014/09/feminists-versus-yellow-fever.html

And on a closing note:


Please do better.

The current situation is, at best, an embarrassment. And yet another printed report from the government, even one laden with woke buzzwords and abundant pictures of assertive women, won’t get us there.



My submission to the Australian government’s 2023 Human Rights Inquiry … the saga continues

For background relating to this item kindly read this earlier post

What now follows is a copy of an email I sent on 15 August 2023 to Josh Burns MP, the Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.

“Dear Josh

I was able to attend the Committee’s meeting in Brisbane today, albeit all too briefly due to various other commitments, and the very short notice provided.

On 7 June I lodged a three page submission to the Inquiry. I have since been in touch with the Secretariat on a couple of occasions to confirm that it would be accepted, speaking again with Geoffrey F. this morning. Meanwhile 269 submissions have been processed and published. I suggested that the fairest approach would be to process submissions in order of their receipt.
Geoffrey did not respond to that suggestion but today advised (again) that they would try to process my submission in the next few weeks. This, assuming it occurs, would take the time frame re: processing my submission out to three months.

Today’s meeting raised another query. On what basis were some people/organisations able to present to the Inquiry in person?

Did they volunteer or were they selected by your committee? If the former then why was this not mentioned in your website or advice given directly to those who had tendered submissions? If the latter, then obviously those submissions that had yet to be processed (e.g. mine) were ruled out of contention.

In each of the cases mentioned above I consider the Inquiry has handled the relevant matter oddly, if not completely inappropriately.

All in all, a disappointing effort thus far.”

(Should a response ever be received from Josh Burns then I will post a copy here)

On 18 August 2023 my submission was finally published online (#309) and I was advised as follows:

“I am writing to advise that your submission has been accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The submission has been published with your name withheld on the committee’s webpage as Submission Number 309. You are now free to circulate your submission to other parties, should you wish to do so. We will also be providing your submission to anyone on request.

Your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament or its members and others necessary for the discharge of the parliamentary functions without obstruction and fear of prosecution. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything that you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence.”

In my original submission I noted that “the online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.” The next development was my discovery that the hyperlinks to supporting information contained in my submission were no longer functional.

On 21 August I was advised that “Committees generally deactivate links to personal websites in submissions. If you would like to provide an addendum with the URLs spelled out in full, we can append it to your submission.” I provided a proposed addendum and was advised that this would be uploaded. I checked the Inquiry website on 23 August, clicking on my submission only to learn that “There seems to be a problem with the page. If the problem persists please contact us.” As I did. And as of the evening of 23 August my submission was available online. <Party-popper duly popped>

In closing, upon my last checking, 318 submissions had been published by the Inquiry’s Secretariat. My initial impression was one of apprehension in the face of what seems to be a surfeit of formulaic ‘woke’ and/or pro-feminist rambling. Where’s all that diversity and inclusion when it’s needed? Where’s the support for men & boys?

Ah, but things could have been so much worse! Read about the experience endured by esteemed lobby group ‘One in Three’, in their dealings with another federal inquiry.

Update as of 4 June 2024: Well, the report was released in May – see https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights/HumanRightsFramework/Report

The report contains virtually nil reference reference to sex discrimination.

My submission to the Australian government’s 2023 Human Rights Inquiry … wherefore art thou?

Have you ever seen a feminist online advocating that those promoting the welfare of men and boys should spend less time criticizing feminism, and more time doing things to help men & boys? Yes? Well let’s take a look at an example of what happens when you seek to provide a positive input …
In early June 2023 I emailed a submission to the Inquiry into Human Rights now being conducted by the Australian Government. Note that the deadline for submissions was 1 July 2023, so I had gotten in well before time. I then sat back waiting for my submission to be accepted by the Inquiry and published on their website. Once this occurs I’m able to also provide a copy here in my website, this being in accordance with the Inquiry’s guidelines:
“After a submission is received by a committee, you cannot publish or disclose it to any other person unless or until the committee has authorised its publication. You cannot share your document until you hear from the committee that it can be published” (Source)
My submission remained unpublished as of 2 August 2023, and so I sent the following email:
Attn: Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

“My submission to the current Inquiry has been with the Secretariat for two months now.

I appreciate the earlier advice from them regarding the large number of submissions that had been received, and the time taken to process them. 
Indeed I note that 185 submissions are now listed on your website. Most of these submissions were, however, presumably lodged subsequent to my own. I am somewhat puzzled by this as it would seem that processing the submissions in the order in which they were received, would be the fairest and most impartial approach to take.
Would you kindly confirm when I might anticipate my submission appearing online? Would you also please advise when further details regarding the proposed Brisbane forum will be made available?
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

On 4 August 2023 I was advised as follows:

“Thanks for your email. As my colleague mentioned, the processing of submissions is a manual one and each submission is considered individually. Publication of submission is ongoing, and will continue in the coming weeks.

Arrangements are also underway in relation to the Brisbane hearing, and further details will be published on the committee’s webpage prior to the hearing.”

That’s right, zero mention of the issue of the method of ordering re: the processing of submissions, nor was a date provided as to when my submission would appear online.

Why don’t they remove all doubt and simply state that if people choose to be critical of the current priorities of the Australian Human Rights Commission, then they shouldn’t even hope to have input into future policy formulation.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am. Let’s see shall we?

Update as of 15 August 2023: I attended a portion of today’s meeting in Brisbane during which I spoke to the Secretariat. I was (again) told that they would try to process my submission in the next 2-3 weeks. I have just written to the Chairman of the Inquiry expressing my disappointment.)

Update as of 4 June 2024: Well, the report was released in May – see https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights/HumanRightsFramework/Report

The report contains virtually nil reference reference to sex discrimination.

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 3)

On 6 July 2023 the Government announced the name of the person who will take on Kate Jenkin’s previous role with the AHRC.

Here is the text from an article that appeared in ‘Women’s Agenda’:

“Professor Anna Cody is Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Professor Anna Cody has been appointed as Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The Dean of the School of Law at Western Sydney University has been selected to succeed Kate Jenkins, whose term as Sex Discrimination Commissioner ended in April. Professor Cody will join the Australian Human Rights Commission for a five-year term, beginning in September.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said Professor Cody was appointed as Commissioner following a merit-based selection process, and that she would bring with her a wealth of experience in advocating for women and fighting discrimination.

“Through her work in Community Legal Centres, on the Board of the Legal Aid Commission of NSW and her role now as Dean of the School of Law at Western Sydney University, Dr Cody has a deep understanding of the systemic discrimination Australian women still face,” Dreyfus said in a statement on Thursday.

Dreyfus said Professor Cody will be tasked with promoting and advancing the rights of Australians by tackling discrimination based on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and other protected attributes in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

She will also be integral in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s delivery of the Respect@Work: Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report (2020), first handed down by Kate Jenkins in 2020.

President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher, also welcomed Professor Cody to the high-profile role.

“Professor Cody’s extensive experience has brought her into contact with women and girls from diverse backgrounds and perspectives including First Nations women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, women with disability and LGBTQIA+ women,” Professor Croucher said.

“She will also play a pivotal role in implementing the significant Respect at Work reforms to prevent workplace sexual harassment.

“We are delighted to have someone of her calibre join the Commission to advance the work of gender equality and defend the rights of LGBTQIA+ people under the Sex Discrimination Act.””

Kind of light with regards to mentioning the existence of male humans? Sure was. And the same deficiency was replicated in all of the articles/media releases that I’ve seen thus far.

Fingers crossed that Ms Cody can and will subsequently provide a more open, balanced and insightful contribution to the human rights debate.

(Note: The first blog post in this series of articles can be found here)

See also:

(Update 7 June 2024: The AHRC blocked me from accessing their Twitter stream)

Our response to domestic violence cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach (6 May 2024)

Feminism’s workplace gulags, by Bettina Arndt (18 January 2024)

Landmark research study finds clear evidence of pro-women/anti-men bias (28 September 2023)

New sex discrimination commissioner urges wider lens to tackle inequality (12 September 2023)

Is BHP discriminating against men? by Bettina Arndt (15 August 2023) Note reference to the actions of the AHRC here

Has the accepted role of journalism become that of a woke lullaby?

On the 16 June 2023 Australian media operator, Crikey, issued the following advice in relation to an article written by senior staffer, Guy Rundle:

Crikey has made the decision to unpublish the article, and apologises to Brittany Higgins and readers”.

Thus Crikey didn’t simply grovel, it took the somewhat unusual step of also deleting the article in question from their website. So if you’d like to read the article and form your own view of the matter, well tough, as you’ll need to search high and low to find yourself a copy. You might also wish to read various papers on the topic that have been prepared by Bettina Arndt (example).

I’ve read the Crikey article and I can’t fathom the amount of venom it’s attracted. The author doesn’t accuse anyone of anything, he simply nominates and briefly discusses a number of possible scenarios. I could point to many pro-feminist/woke-authored papers that should have sparked greater outrage, and were far more worthy of removal. Anyway, I’ll study Guy’s article again in coming days and perhaps my view will alter. But I doubt it.

Considering the following points:

  • the rather large question marks still posed by the Higgins matter
  • the corresponding manner in which our feminist-saturated media deals with (or fails to deal with) stories about men and boys, and
  • that we seemed to be making progress in terms of the media tackling issues with their eyes a little more widely opened.

I’m more inclined to #FacePalm #sigh. Oh, I dunno. Surely I’m not alone in finding this episode to be both very disappointing and worrisome regarding where-ever it is that the media, government and sundry woke cohorts are heading?

And the silence that now surrounds the issue suggests that those who might otherwise demand answers, have gone to ground in the expectation that woke screamers will bay for the blood of anyone who dares lift their heads from the trench.

One point that has been raised, and understandably so, is the figure of AUD$3mill that was earlier suggested as the sum that Brittany received from the government. Brittany has stated that she didn’t receive anything close to this amount. So how much and why?

Surely you would think that someone would lodge an FOI request to clarify at least this point. But nope – silence.

Anyway we’ll see what, if anything, emerges in coming days.





Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework (2023)

On 15 March 2023, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the following matters for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:

  • to review the scope and effectiveness of Australia’s 2010 Human Rights Framework and the National Human Rights Action Plan;
  • to consider whether the Framework should be re-established, as well as the components of the Framework, and any improvements that should be made;
  • to consider developments since 2010 in Australian human rights laws (both at the Commonwealth and State and Territory levels) and relevant case law; and
  • to consider any other relevant matters.

The committee invited submissions up to 1 July 2023 in relation to these matters.

Readers might wish to pause now to look at the relevant website.

A copy of my submission follows:

A submission to the Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework

Dear members of the Committee

Thank you for extending this opportunity to offer my thoughts in relation to the work of the Inquiry.

That item within the Terms of Reference that my submission primarily addresses is:

Whether existing mechanisms to protect human rights in the federal context are adequate and if improvements should be made, including:

  • to the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights;
  • the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
  • the process of how federal institutions engage with human rights, including requirements for statements of compatibility”

It is my impression that the Australian Human Rights Commission exercises some, if not most, of its responsibilities through a lens of fashionable ‘woke’ assumptions, beliefs and ideologies, including those associated with gender feminism. I do not believe that this should be the case. I believe that the rights and the welfare of all substantial demographic groups within the Australian community should be equally and accurately acknowledged, valued and supported.

The online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.

Gender matters are most likely touched upon by all Commissioners, but the focus in this regard centres upon the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. All those staff appointed to this position have, to date, been female – which I believe to have been inappropriate.

I think I am correct in stating that at least the last two incumbents declared themselves to be determined and committed followers of feminist ideology. I would suggest that partly as a consequence of this, during that time no significant programs were undertaken by the Commission in which the primary focus was on the rights and welfare of men and boys. I have sought to clarify this belief via requests for confirmation addressed to the Commission, an example of which is provided on the final page of this submission.

I discuss this perceived gender bias at the commission in the following blog posts:

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

I note also the Commission’s submission to this current Inquiry wherein readers undertaking a word search on the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ will find 0 instances of the former, and yet 22 instances of the latter.

Still, things could be worse. Consider a recent Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade paper on the global theme of gender equality. The word ‘man’ features once in this document whereas ‘woman’ features 58 times

If my observation is correct then the question must be asked as to why such a marked imbalance – a clear example of actual sex discrimination – is considered to be acceptable. Feminists appear inclined to excuse double-standards like this on the basis of an assertion that women are substantially worse off than men, and have been for much of history. I reject such a view entirely, and if the relevant government agencies were willing to undertake the appropriate reporting then the actual situation regarding the genders might finally be made clearer for all. Instead, and for the time being, the widespread occurrence of Gamma Bias and of heads deeply buried in the sand shall continue to prevail.

Chart of the Day: For Every 100 Young Women in October 2021…. and ‘Equal Pay Day’ This Year Was March 15 — the Next ‘Equal Occupational Fatality Day’ Won’t Be Until September 18, 2032. These papers by Mark J. Perry provide USA data about men. Comparative data such as this should be produced and made available in Australia. This would help correct the plethora of gender-related misstatements such as those routinely addressed by, for example, the One in Three organisation.

How men are portrayed. Haw Haw Haw. The joke’s on us

#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012

The ongoing erosion of research and publication standards – aka fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

I further believe that those groups and individuals consulted by the Commission should not be filtered or excluded on the basis of the degree to which their beliefs happen to align with those of the Commissioners and their staff.

I would note that for several years now I have been blocked from accessing a social media account of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, although not the Twitter account operated by the Commission as a corporate entity. This blocking of information sources and alternative perspectives has become a common occurrence in pro-feminist web sites and/or news outlets. I believe this behaviour to be unhelpful and inappropriate, and doubly so in the case of publicly-funded organisations. This subject, and my associated dealings with the Human Rights Commission, are addressed in the following two blog posts:

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem