Tasmania’s Illogical, Illiberal, Anti-Discrimination Laws
Surely offence and insult are in the eye of the beholder!
Gender identity is a protected trait in Tasmania.
This means it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they identify differently from their biological sex.
And incredibly, it is illegal to offend or insult someone in relation to their gender identity.
Shifting Standards
Now please understand that I am most certainly not advocating that we go around trying to offend or insult people.
But I am astonished that subjectivity is written into law. Surely offence and insult are in the eye of the beholder!
The Tasmanian laws meant that if I say something and you complain that I have insulted you, a non-elected, non-representative public bureaucrat will be appointed to adjudicate not only whether what I said was legal, but whether the intent of my heart when I said it was malicious.
How can a government stooge possibly claim to know the intent of my heart?
Moreover, the public servant will need to investigate the emotions my words aroused in you when you heard them. And it doesn’t matter whether I was actually speaking to you, or even about you.
Grammatical Grouses
The Tasmanian government’s own website, Equal Opportunity Tasmania, gives the following example of discrimination that would be considered illegal.
“Francis identifies as non-binary and likes to be called ‘they’. Their work colleagues continually refer to them as ‘her’ and ‘she’ despite Francis asking their colleagues to stop.
The use of inappropriate pronouns is discriminatory and can cause humiliation and offence.
I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that Francis is a bit weird. Me too.
Francis is also a biological woman! She’s not a they. She’s a she.
And besides, “they” is a plural pronoun and Francis is not a group, she’s an individual.
To call Francis a “they” is not only biologically incorrect, it is grammatically incorrect.
To which the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner would reply:
“A person’s designated sex at birth is irrelevant.”
Yep. That’s literally what the commissioner would say. The commissioner actually says it on the government website.
Denial of Reality
Again, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that not only is Francis weird, so is the commissioner. And the commissioner has power over you!
“But Francis is a woman. She has a vagina and breasts and uses around 20,000 words every day!”
“Irrelevant,” the Tasmanian government says.
By that same logic, if you insisted that a trans woman cannot have babies, you would be in danger of breaching the law.
“But he can’t get pregnant,” I hear you say. “He doesn’t have a womb, or ovaries, or eggs. And even if he had all of those things, where would the baby come out?
Irrelevant, the Tasmanian government says.
He identifies as a “she” so you must call him “she/her”.
Moreover, he feels all insulted and offended that you have denied he can give birth just because he is anatomically unequipped for the task. It makes him feel like he’s not a real woman. So, you’ve committed an offence.
Here’s how the discrimination law is written:
“It is also against the law to offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule a person because of their gender identity, or to publicly incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the basis of gender identity.”
Nothing More Than Feelings
The good news is that if you believe there is a reason you should be exempt from this, you can apply to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner for an exemption.
Dear Commissioner,
I would like an exemption from being compelled to say things I do not believe in order to appease other people’s feelings.
Sincerely,
James (He/Him)
How do you think I would go?
You can say something in Tasmania, the legality of which depends entirely on the feelings of the person hearing it.
One day your words are fine. The next day, someone just isn’t vibing with your words, so they constitute an offence.
No decent person wants to hurt other people’s feelings, but it is wrong to make hurting other people’s feelings an offence.
Laws that criminalise your words based on how someone else feels about them are wrong.
Laws that compel you to say things you do not believe are wrong.
Laws that give the government permission to judge your thoughts are wrong.
That is why I believe the anti-discrimination laws are illogical, illiberal, and just plain wrong.
___
Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.
Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Image: BigStock
4 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
14 January 2025
2.9 MINS
Australia’s virtue signalling High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is doing a backflip, after a massive backlash. Stephen Smith, whose taxpayer-funded income is in the six-figure range, declared on Thursday that he would not be attending a key Australia Day function.
14 January 2025
3.2 MINS
A landmark health meeting will be presented with shocking figures on the number of people with severe psychiatric conditions who are receiving few or no services in the community, as ministers come together to formulate a national response to the nation’s growing mental health crisis.
13 January 2025
3.5 MINS
Errol Musk is predicating Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) will one day be Prime Minister. Elon’s estranged and controversial father aired the not-so-batty point in an interview shared to X by The Times Radio on Tuesday.
13 January 2025
7.6 MINS
Depending on which echo chamber you get your news from, last week Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took steps to either save democracy, or to end it. Zuckerberg announced several changes to Meta’s moderation approach, including replacing third-party fact-checkers with a user-driven Community Notes model.
13 January 2025
2.3 MINS
Where confusion over sexuality abounds today, the Australian Creed brings crisp clarity to this deeply personal and vitally important biblical teaching. And the impact of the creed is growing.
10 January 2025
3.9 MINS
Mark Zuckerberg is renouncing the regime, and righting the ship. Or so he says. The Meta magnate wants his platforms to re-acquaint themselves with a passion for promoting freedom of speech. Zuckerberg promises to end Meta’s “fact”-checking war on free speech.
10 January 2025
10 MINS
I think we all believe that we have a neural pathway in our brain that can detect truth from lies. However, it seems to me that there are a series of filters that we consciously or subconsciously apply to the inputs of information that obscure or cancel some or all of the data.
This is like saying black is white and white is black and expecting, and even compelling, people to believe you.
The father of lies is Satan the lie is it’s primary language -small wonder that the language of lies is being enshrined into law
I am so relieved to have a healthy fear of God and so in awe of His love.
Thanks James.
You Christians are really all about love, aren’t you? Please show me where the evil transes hurt you, hateful bigots 🙂
To quote the article, “Laws that criminalise your words based on how someone else feels about them are wrong.” – do you wanna be able to say the n word too or something? We have anti-discrimination laws because people like you are incapable of basic human decency. Please re-examine your bias here, and I’d love to see where in the bible it says anything about trans folx too.
I was born and raised (kinda) in Tasmania the stories I could tell ya..,,
Then again….Jesus Christ our risen savour is now my Lord and master and the stories I could tell ya….