Names will never hurt me.... but they might make me money

This article was inspired by a poem that was submitted by a Grumble fan (go here to see the said poem). I wanted to expand on some the ideas included in my commentary concerning the issues raised by the poem. This article uses case examples from the website of the ACT Human Rights Office but it isn't directed solely at them. The comparable government bodies in the other states and territories of Australia work pretty much the same and have a similar impact on the people who are unlucky enough to interact with them.

Now look, I have worked in government departments and they are full of well meaning, diligent people who are trying to do their best. However there is a thing that I like to call the 'Tyranny of the Well Meaning'. This is where an idea that seems fair and just on the surface turns into a vehicle for abuse and oppression due to the misguided efforts of the Coalition of the Well Meaning. People in the Coalition have this idea that they know best, that they simply must interfere in your life and that no one else (other than them) can be trusted to do what they think is the 'right thing'. Billy Connolly labelled these types of people the 'Beige People'. Usually they reside in the government or are supported by the government. If we are lucky the tyrannical processes they develop don't directly affect more than a few of us poor buggers. Funny how this 'few' never includes any in the members of the coalition who dream up and actively support the said tyrannical process. 

The ACT Office of Human Rights, which is staffed by paid up members of the coalition, is a classic example of the tyranny of the well meaning. Who could object to the notion of human rights? Other than most species of plants and animals who, lets face it, haven't fared that well with our preoccupation with human rights. But thankfully they are only capable of basic levels of intelligence which doesn't allow them to indulge in that wonderful thing called activism. For the record I (being human) am a big fan of Human Rights. In particular those two much under utilised but very important human rights - the right to remain silent and the right to mind your own bloody business. Celebrities please overuse the first of these and those of you in government or most religious organisations overuse the second. Proponents for a Bill of Rights make sure they are both included in a prominent spot.

So why is the pursuit of human rights part of the ongoing tyranny of the well meaning I hear you ask? Well, as with a lot of things, its not the idea its the way its implemented. You start with an unassailably good notion. "we are against discrimination" - great you have my full support. "we are against harassment on the basis of race, religion, etc - yep still there with you comrade. "To make sure we stamp out this scourge we will create a government body (oh no) with strong powers (cripes here we go again) and a dedicated full time staff (I am getting that sinking feeling in my gut)" who will develop a fair and accessible process (aaarggghhh! it's the coalition of the well meaning!!)".  

You see the Human Rights Office has this thing called a conciliation process. Their website sets out the overall process and thoughtfully includes a series of examples of where this conciliation process has been 'successfully' used. This is used to try to get a negotiated settlement where a complaint has been made and the facts point to a breach of the relevant section of the Anti Discrimination Act. 

I have a number of problems with this process.

• This conciliation occurs under the threat of sanction. It's a bit like when the representative of the local organised crime syndicate arrives at your business and markets the advantages of their 'protection' scheme. They are of course keen to 'negotiate' a 'win win' outcome but you know what happens if you don't enthusiastically agree to be part of this process. Where an outcome from conciliation cannot be negotiated the complaint can go to a formal hearing for a determination by the Human Rights Commissioner and this determination "must be followed". Now the person making the complaint has nothing to fear in this process. After all they effectively get two chances to get something and even if they were to walk away with nothing this is no different from where they were at the start of the process. The person (usually an employer) who is the subject of the complaint however knows that they had better reach an agreement or else.

• There does not seem to be a requirement that parties to the process use it in good faith. Even though the website states that all the facts are taken into consideration there is nothing that states that the Human Rights Office ensures that the complaint is not petty or vexatious. The poem that inspired this article is an example whereby the complainant did not use the process in good faith and was in fact using it for revenge. I have read of cases (not related to the ACT Human Rights Office) where the complainant deliberately lied in order to get someone 'into trouble' and receive a payout.

• The process does not foster self reliance or the development of social interaction skills. Looking at many of the example conciliation outcomes, I see a lot of people who were unable to handle something someone said that they didn't like. As far as I can see the process ensured that none of those people developed any skills at dealing with similar situations in the future. What they learned was to rely on the Human Rights Office to deal with their problems. This is neither a desirable nor effective approach to social interaction.

Think about the people you most admire I guarantee at least some of the qualities you admire in that person have to do with courage and strength in the face of adversity. The great Aussie battler or bronzed ANZAC didn't go running to some government body every time someone else said a rude or nasty word.

• There is no attempt to keep situations in perspective. Someone got $11,000 because he was 'hurt' by a cartoon someone put up on a notice board at work. Someone else got $5,000 for being hurt by jokes at a Christmas party. A young lady received $2,000 because some idiot she worked with said she had a 'sexy body'.  As that well known leftie comedian Will Anderson says 'go #@@! yourself if you can't take a joke'. Sure he was referring to all the people upset by his insults over the years but you get my point. I have no doubt that people get genuinely upset about the things that other people say. We've all experienced it, the best approach is to ignore it and move on. 

I remember being a kid at school and being surrounded by other bigger kids (from various ethnic groups - ain't Multiculturism grand!) and listening to them chanting 'Pommie Bastard' just before they beat the living suitcase out of me. My Mum used to say 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. She should have added fists and boots to sticks and stones but she was right about the names bit. The racism inherent in being called a 'Pommie bastard' was not my major concern at the time. I have two regrets about those incidents. One was I didn't get hold of a hand gun and teach those multicultural thugs a lesson in racial tolerance and the other was that there wasn't a Human Rights Office so I could get an excessive compensation payout. Still I managed to deal with it at the time and then put it behind me without the need for vigilante style violence, counselling or money. 

• There is no attempt to get people to take responsibility for their actions. Many of the example cases involved the employer having to pay compensation for the actions of an employee. This does nothing to modify the behaviour of the person causing the problem. An employer will never be able to adequately act as a moral guardian of the behaviour of its employees. One of the cases involved the assault of a work mate by the complainant because he couldn't take the teasing of that work mate. The complainant received a significant sum of money as part of the conciliation process from the employer because the employer's induction training did not include harassment complaint guidelines. 

Everybody knows that assaulting anyone except in self defence is wrong. They can also work out how to complain to management about problems with their work mates if they spend even a second thinking about it without having to go to a course. Giving someone money in this circumstance doesn't just condone violence it rewards it. The notion of 'an employer' is a legal construct it has nothing to do with reality. People exhibit behaviour (some good and some bad) and if the process was fair it would deal with the people exhibiting the undesired behaviour. Of course if this were to happen there would be a backlash as people who are unable to afford it suddenly started having to pay for saying 'hurtful' things to other people. 

Even the complainants seemed to be immune from having to take responsibility for their accusations and behaviour. In one case a person who accused several people at his work of being racists for not promoting him and then couldn't provide evidence to back this up still obtained extra training from the people he vilified. There was no indication that he was required to apologise for his accusations and in fact the 'solution' to this case simply reinforced that the cause of his problem had to be addressed by other people.

Now I bet you're thinking come on PJ, surely some good comes of it. Yes even the Coalition get it right on occasion. The process has resulted in some improvements for the disabled. In one instance a disabled person couldn't get into a restaurant toilet. Don't tell me you ever forget really having to go and not being able to - phew I still have nightmares from the last time. However most situations seemed to be about whingers and socially fragile people who can't handle the rough and tumble of life. Still why would you try to handle it when you can do very nicely out of making the most of your injured feelings. 

Lefties will not understand the problem but if you are the least bit normal I defy you to not be at least a bit concerned. Social interaction is hard at times and we are not trained at it. Most of us bumble through life as best we can and try not to stuff up too badly when dealing with others. The last thing you need is the coalition of the well meaning sticking their beaks in to smack you round the head every time you make a mistake or being made an example of by some Activist. 

Hmmm maybe I am being a bit hasty ... I've got a few bills coming up I wonder if I can get vilified and paid out before they are due?

Activism - actions perpetrated by the worst of the Coalition of the Well Meaning known as the Activist

Is there anything more annoying than an activist? Some people wear the tag as a badge of honour but what the term tells most people is that you are an arrogant, narrow minded, ego driven bigot. This is true no matter how worthwhile the cause. A typical conversation with an Activist goes something like ...."yes yes I know whales are beautiful... oh yes the Japanese shouldn't hunt them... I agree saving them is important ... no I promise I won't buy sushi ... yes I will sign the petition ... yes please give me 8 copies of the whale music cd I'm sure they will make fabulous presents ...yes I promise to call my first born Orca - ANYTHING! JUST GET THE HELL AWAY FROM ME!".

Activists by and large have no sense of humour, no sense of perspective and nothing to say outside the confines of their pet issue. Their cynical, negative and narrow world view very quickly becomes painful and annoying to everyone except other activists who happen to agree with them. If one of your friends becomes an activist immediately isolate them - trust me, activism has a nasty way of spreading to other formally normal people. Tough love is the only answer to this insidious and ultimately debilitating disease. Do not encourage or support them in their activism in any way. Continually point out that there is more to the world than their pet issue. Extol the virtues of common sense, objectivity and a sense of perspective. If all else fails consider mechanical restraints until the madness passes.