“An opinion I proffer without hesitation is that if gratitude, respect and kindness were a daily practice in our lives there would be much less room for negative attitudes and anti-social behaviours,” wrote Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner Sarah Bolt in her agency’s annual report last year. “I encourage anybody who may read this report to discover and reflect on the power of these three words.”
As part of this drive towards eradicating negative attitudes and anti-social behaviours, Bolt cited several inspirational quotes in her report, including that of a certain celebrity who once remarked “I learned compassion from being discriminated against. Everything bad that’s ever happened to me has taught me compassion.”
That was one Ellen Lee DeGeneres, and I encourage anybody who may read this column to discover and reflect on the power of these three words. The multi-millionaire talk-show host and luvvie darling was recently forced to issue a lengthy apology for her appalling treatment of employees and her workplace culture in general. So much for her compassion.
You may remember that in 2016 then President Barack Obama presented DeGeneres with the nation’s highest civilian honour, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “In every role, she reminds us to be kind to one another and to treat people as each of us wants to be treated,” he gushed. At least when she is facing the camera, he should have added. Perhaps Bolt could arrange for this year’s annual report to feature an image of DeGeneres along with a quote of Lord Byron: “Keep thy smooth words and juggling homilies for those who know thee not”.
It may just be that my instinctive dislike of seemingly overpaid statutory appointees is to blame, but I believe many of our anti-discrimination officials go beyond their legislative remit and instead see themselves as commissar for good manners and correct thought. Witness Bolt, for example, who has decreed that Tasmanian Senator Claire Chandler must attend a so-called mediation session today to answer for her remarks about gender identity.
Chandler upset the transgender lobby in July when she wrote in The Mercury: “You don’t have to be a bigot to recognise the differences between the male and female sexes and understand why women’s sports, single sex changerooms and toilets are important”. In an email to a constituent who asked her whether she knew the difference between sex and gender, she wrote “I do understand the difference – that’s why I’ve made the point in my article that women’s toilets and women’s change rooms are designed for people of the female sex (women) and should remain that way.”
Chandler’s article and her email were subsequently referred to the commission. Noting the complainant was not a member of the trans community, Bolt dismissed the complaint about the article; however, in respect to the email she formally advised Chandler her views were “problematic” and that “a reasonable person is likely to anticipate that a person who is a member of the LGBTIQ+ and gender diverse community would be humiliated, intimidated, offended and insulted”.
Bolt also wrote: “It is arguable that following shifts towards unisex toilets, it is no longer necessary to have separate toilets based on gender or sex.” Perhaps Chandler should have retorted it is no longer necessary, and in fact never was, to have state officials regulate what is supposed to be free speech, especially that of elected representatives.
But let’s apply Bolt’s comments about the importance of leaving little room for negative attitudes and anti-social behaviours to the Chandler case. These are highly subjective terms. You could assert with justification that anyone with a penis who argues he is a woman has a negative attitude towards biology or reality for that matter. Likewise, many would agree that allowing bearded people with that same appendage access to women’s change rooms is anti-social behaviour. Ultimately, however, truth is defined by whatever the noisy minority hold, in this case the alphabet activists.
Chandler has consistently argued for the protection of biological females in women’s sports. She has cited World Rugby research that shows female players face a 20-30 per cent higher risk of injury if biological males who identify as women were permitted to compete. For pointing out this obvious fact she has been labelled as “transphobic” by other politicians including Labor Senator Nita Green, who last month accused her of using her the campaign to veil her “faux feminist values”. Oh the irony.
As she has demonstrated, Chandler has shown she is prepared to justify her stance to her constituents. What she was not prepared for was having to justify these same remarks to a state official. As a respondent to such a complaint, she is compelled by law to attend this euphemistically titled conciliation conference.
But it gets even more bizarre. As The Australian’s Matthew Denholm reported on Monday, Chandler’s outspokenness about this farcical process led to her receiving correspondence from an Equal Opportunity Tasmania official, along with “a sample of emails that the commissioner has received since your public statements … about the complaint”. The official also warned Chandler that those who “hinder” or “use insulting language” against the commissioner could be fined.
How this implied threat can be reconciled with the statutory obligation that Tasmanian public servants “must treat everyone with respect and without harassment,” I do not know. But if I were Chandler, I would have responded with the following:
Dear Commissioner Bolt,
I wish to preface my reply by acknowledging the invaluable and essential work that your office performs. Goodness knows where we would be without you and your ilk. I had a nightmare last night that state parliament legislated to remove all the hate speech provisions from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Just imagine the terrible consequences that would follow. Men who menstruate and women with a Welcome Stranger-size Adam’s apple would no longer be able to dictate the great gender truths.
Please be assured it was never my intention to cause insult to your esteemed self or to your functionaries. As for those emails sent to your office by my supporters, I apologise for their impertinence. Doubtless they are ill-bred types. I am all in favour of addressing Tasmania’s disproportionately high illiteracy rates, but not if citizens use their new-found knowledge to cause affront to their betters. Personally, I don’t think a mere fine is sufficient for the lampooning of public servants. Would your anger be assuaged if I wrote to my state counterparts and demanded they re-open the Macquarie Harbour penal settlement for repeat offenders?
Our world is in the middle of a pandemic and our state faces economic ruin if we do not return to normal soon, but nonetheless I agree the most important issue for Tasmania at present is someone taking offence to what I thought was innocuous language in my email. Thank you for opening my eyes to my terminology being “problematic”. In future I will send draft correspondence for my constituents to your office for clearance.
I also concede that my implied constitutional right to political free speech as a federal senator is subordinate to the apparent whims of a local commissioner. As for my ill-advised decision to engage in hate speech, otherwise known as biological facts, I hear and obey your summons. I further understand I am expected to recant and atone, as well as publicly apologise for causing offence. What is more I will sit at the table opposite my accuser and pretend to take proceedings seriously, resisting to my utmost the urge to slip a much-needed teaspoon of cement in his beverage.
Furthermore, I will publicly avow trans activists act only with good intentions in making complaints to your office, and that any suggestion this is a power trip to force others to acquiesce in their ideology is totally unfounded. And if you believe any of these undertakings you probably also believe I won’t turn your bunfight into a High Court challenge if need be.
Lastly, I would be much obliged if you could convey a message to the individual who warned me that those who insult either you or your employees could face prosecution. Could you please tell that person to discover and reflect on the power of these three words: get – a – life.
More Coverage
Olympics boss rejects conflict of interest claim over $2.5bn arena
Stephen Conry insists he lodged declarations to address any ‘perceived conflicts of interest’ between his former high-flying corporate job and heading the agency charged with getting the 2032 Games build back on track.
Union, law firm cut off alleged rape victim
A young lawyer was allegedly raped by a delegate at a Health and Community Services Union conference, while the ‘worker-friendly’ law firm that sent her there has won a bid to halt her compensation.