As shown in the video attached to Sinclair’s blog, Broderick claims that the Human Rights Commission
focusses on your right to a life free of violence
No, Broderick, the Police are there to protect people from violence. She goes on to say
we have 17000 calls a year of which 4 only relate to freedom of expression
But check out the Commission’s website. It says (under the section labelled complaints):
The Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment and bullying based on a person’s:
- sex, including pregnancy, marital status, breastfeeding, family responsibilities and sexual harassment
- disability, including temporary and permanent disabilities; physical, intellectual, sensory, psychiatric disabilities, diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability
- race, including colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status and racial hatred
- age, covering young people and older people
- sexual preference, criminal record, trade union activity, political opinion, religion or social origin (in employment only)
It is against the law to be discriminated against in many areas of public life, including employment, education, the provision of goods, services and facilities, accommodation, sport and the administration of Commonwealth laws and services.
The Commission can also investigate and resolve complaints about alleged breaches of human rights against the Commonwealth and its agencies.
Not one mention of complaints being welcome re freedom of speech.
Imagine how many more complaints there would have been if the right to a life free from offense had been enacted.
In fact Broderick and her colleagues were behind Roxon’s legislation; my understanding is that the Human Rights Commission has been pushing for an extension of its charter into this field for some time. It would result in a bigger and more powerful Human Rights Commissi0n - no wonder the Commission wanted the new legislation. In fact, the thousands of responses to Roxon’s new law should be treated as complaints against the infringement of freedom of speech.
The Human Rights Commission is a farce – it is there to harm human rights, not protect them. When a threat to that most precious of human rights was in the offing, the Human Rights Commission was silent.
Broderick and her colleagues have shown their colours and no amount of dissembling can change that fact. They do not deserve to remain in their positions – they have failed utterly in protecting our human rights.
Further, the Commission claims that human rights
Human rights are about recognising and respecting the inherent value and dignity of all people. Human rights standards are contained in internationally agreed human rights instruments recognised in Australian law. The Australian Human Rights Commission has responsibilities for promoting and encouraging protection of human rights in Australia.
No, a thousand times no! Thomas Paine wrote on this very point
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabit-ants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice … The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
The Human Rights Commission should be abolished. It has been subverting human rights while promoting a culture of complaint.