An eye for an eye in human rights law

Actually, I think Marr is on the wrong track.

If I were Marr I would be much more worried about other provisions in the Government’s proposed legislation.

I, as a religious person, find Marr’s reference to those of religious faith as ‘bigots’ deeply offensive and insulting. How dare he call religious persons arguing for the retention of existing law, ‘bigots’!

Under section 19(2) of the Bill and assuming it is enacted as is, I am entitled to go to the Australian Human Rights Commission as a complainant alleging ‘unfavourable treatment’ by Marr on the basis of conduct that offends and insults me who will then need to appear before the Commission as respondent (section 89 of the Act). As respondent it will be up to him to prove his innocence.

Now Marr and I have only got to this position because in section 22 of the Bill, the Government has chosen to depart from the custom of limiting anti-discrimination law to vertical relationships, that is to relationships involving ‘responsibility, authority or power’ as in the employment situation, to extend anti-discrimination law to the regulation of behaviour between all kinds of relationships, both horizontal as well as vertical, even permitting a person to allege discrimination on the basis of a particular attribute against his neighbour, such as I am proposing against Marr.

As I say, instead of mining for specks in the eye – I know they look like logs to him, but they really are specks, Marr, given his customary flamboyance, would be better to stop and protest what is going to cause him real grief in the future if the Bill is not changed.

By the way, I’ll let Marr off this time, but maybe not next time.....