All of a sudden Triggs finds the delete button

Two weeks ago, Queen Gillian frocked herself up and went out to mingle with the natives at the ABC.

She even deigned to appear on the 730 program, where she had this to say after polite questioning about her right (or should that be ‘left’) royal stuff-up while investigating ‘racial hatred’ complaints about university students from QUT:

“…this one was one that had a level of substance. The complaints were ones that attracted a certain measure of concern about the nature of the comments that were made. I won’t repeat the language but it was worrying and troubling…”

Just so you know, quoted below is one of those ‘worrying’ and ‘troubling’ comments that cannot be repeated in polite anti-discrimination society:

“My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is ­encourage separation and ­inequality.”

If anything, that comment should be damned for its boring adherence to politically-correct speak. However, it most certainly is not racist. Even in today’s world of absurd, it’s hard to fathom how it can possibly be labelled as hate-speak not to be repeated.

The words above cost Kyran Findlater a cool 15 grand: $10,000 in legal fees and another $5,000 in ‘go away’ money. It’s slightly more than an arm and a leg for a university student.

And why did it cost him so? Well the same ABC interview makes it clear that Gillian Triggs must investigate and conciliate every complaint:

LEIGH SALES: As Sabra Lane just reported, the Human Rights Commission has said that the bar for accepting complaints is too low but you have the power to throw out complaints that are trivial, vexatious and lacking in substance. Why didn’t you do that sooner in the QUT case?

GILLIAN TRIGGS: Perhaps I can first explain that the commission is bound to accept any complaint that is in writing that alleges a breach of the discrimination law.

So the first obligation is to accept the complaint and then to investigate it and conciliate it.

In fact, Gillian even went on to explicitly make the point that the Australian Human Rights Commission was not a court and that its job is to conciliate complaints rather than guessing at what a court might decide. See:

GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well, we could have made that judgement about what a court might do but that misunderstands our role.

Our role is not a court. We are there to, in effect, stop matters going to the court.

We have about 20,000 complaints a year, or matters a year. And we try, our job is to investigate and conciliate them and that’s why we come back to the threshold point.

It’s a very low threshold.

Hence Kyran Findlater was kept dangling above the burning stake by Ms Triggs. But she didn’t like being blamed for the unjustifiable suffering that she had caused these students. So Triggs doubled-down on her claims that she had no choice but to accept, investigate and conciliate the baseless claims against them. The day after her ABC interview with the 730 program, the Australian High Commissar of Unbiased Political Investigations went back to ABC radio to dig her hole a little deeper, making it even clearer that the Thought Police must investigate and attempt to conciliate all complaints:

FRAN KELLY: Is Malcolm Turnbull right when he says the bar is set too low? Are the current laws being abused? Do they make your job too difficult?

GILLIAN TRIGGS: We have at the Human Rights Commission for many years – certainly the last 5 or 6 years – asked the respective Attorneys General to amend our statute so that we have a greater ability to decline matters right at the beginning.

At the moment, once we receive a written complaint alleging a breach of anti-discrimination law, I must, as President, investigate and attempt to conciliate. That’s our role. So yes, the answer is we would welcome an inquiry, we would welcome an attempt to moderate our statute that would make it a little easier for the Commission to say: these matters are coming to us and we don’t think they have any legs at all.

So, you can imagine my surprise today. I received a letter from the Australian Human Rights Commission informing me that, to use the language of Queen Gillian, it didn’t think my complaint against Linda Burney had any legs at all.

Actually, I’m not really surprised.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is not there to be unbiased. It exists precisely to be biased. That’s what it’s there for. There’s no point having a state-funded political police force to do Penny Wong and the Greens’ dirty work if it has to worry about things like impartiality or consistency.

Now, I’ll have more to say about this in coming days. And I will be responding to the letter sent on behalf of Queen Gillian in due course. I’ll start by pointing out her own words that she must investigate and conciliate every complaint, so much so that she’s been furiously lobbying for the law to be changed for the past half a decade.

Gillian Triggs cannot simply embark on a whinge-fest about how hard it is dismiss complaints when a court makes her look foolish and then the next day decide that politically inconvenient complaints don’t meet her very low threshold.

I’ll also be reminding Gillian of her seemingly frequent habit of confusing fact with fiction. I’d hate for people to think that she rocked up to the ABC armed with a bunch of porkies. Or that the ABC failed to notice…

In the meantime, I am preparing for a court case to take on the New South Wales version of 18c. It will be heard next week in Sydney.

Just know this: the first quote below has been described by Gillian Triggs as so worrying and troubling that it can’t be repeated. And it cost a student $15,000:

“My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is ­encourage separation and ­inequality.”

But this next quote insulting white males, in the opinion of the Australian Human Rights Commission, hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of reaching the threshold of a racial vilification complaint under 18c – a threshold that Gillian herself described as very low:

“It astounds me that the people that are advocating for the removal of 18C are basically white men of a certain age that have never experienced racial discrimination in their life.”

Gillian Triggs’ actions make it very clear: she is not against racially-charged statements at all. She’s only against the ones that suit her. And that’s why she, and her bad law, must go.

If you want to read Queen Gillian’s letter, click here.

And if you want to sign my submission to the parliamentary inquiry calling for the abolition of Queen Gillian’s evil empire, click here.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. I feel guilty for being a white, heterosexual male who wants to protect his country from people like Gillian Triggs….and for objecting to islamic refugees who do not want to live by Australian laws.

    Post a Reply
  2. That Terri Butler was forced to merely insinuate that QUT student Callum Thwaites had used the N-word in a 2013 FB post is a sign of desperation and how important it is for the PC Industry to have examples of White people being racist, horrible, Islamophobic, homophobic and wrong.

    But when the moral highground looks like this:
    Perth Muslim Woman Shouts at man wearing Pauline Hanson T-Shirt at Curtin University

    the PC Industry is going to have to start paying Whites to use the N-word.

    Post a Reply
  3. The schmo screen is that the AHRC was set up to prevent racist rants, invective and abuse like this –
    Chilling: Australian senator attacked for her stand against Muslims.

    The truth is the AHRC was set up to enforce political correctness on the majority of Australians (White Australians) and to lock down free speech and public debate on issues that will arise from the social engineering of the Political Elite – issues like border protection, immigration, the welfare class and its entitlements, land rights, sovereignty and the conflict of laws which inevitably arises within a multicultural state.

    Post a Reply
  4. The main problem is that most people don’t have a clue about all this nonsense that is in fact going on and when you inform them about such, they just totally reject the facts.

    Australia is well on the path to becoming a communistic nation and most people can only just put there head in the sand and run about saying it will never happen, it will never happen! like a bunch of useless cry baby’s that could not hold a candle for fear of getting burnt, so as to up hold the rights of a Healthy democracy and shirking from there responsibility’s, thinking that some how they are detached from the community as a whole, or only come back with saying crap like, she will be right mate ! like some foolish clown.

    Our Political leadership is full of useless gutless wonders, that are just so timid to poke there neck out to speak there own mind, for fear of all the Vultures that are out there that are ready to swoop down with there degenerate aspiration’s of there Political Correct, Satanic God less agendas.

    Such Vultures are likened as a mafia, that intimidates all who oppose them, into submission and use every type of fear tactics that they can and this just one of the tactic that Bernard is pointing out to all of you right here, the fear tactics of such bastards that’s at hand.

    Wake up Australia ! this mob PC degenerates are as cunning as a Rat.

    Post a Reply
    • Those degenerates are not “as cunning as rats”, they ARE rats.

      Post a Reply
  5. I thought her whole performance on the 7:30 Report was a shameful exercise in avoidance of responsibility to act fairly in the interests of the free speech and human rights for all people. She denied any responsibility for the horrible process she had subjected those poor QUT students to. She lied about what she said she had done – to involve the students in a conciliatory process as soon as possible after the complaint was lodged with the HRC. A least one of them was unaware that a complaint had been lodged against him until after the compulsory conciliation meeting. None of them were advised of the complaint for about 14 months, and then given only a few days notice to attend a meeting. How on earth does it take 14 months to investigate a simple complaint; and how can that complaint be fully investigated without interviewing the students involved? That is manifestly unfair, and shows the process is biased in favour of the complainant, and against the defendants. Her response to you over your complaint against Linda Burney shows that the HRC does have the discretion to dismiss a complaint that it regards as trivial or vexatious, or has little prospect of success in a court. She could have used that discretion much earlier in the complaint process involving both the QUT students and the Bill Leak cartoon.

    The whole thing stinks to me. I have been racially insulted by indigenous people in the past, when I have refused to give them $2 for drink money in the street. I have chosen not to be offended, but I am wondering if I should in future get their names and lodge complaints for Triggs to investigate against them for insulting and offending me. My wife who works as a nurse in the emergency department of our local hospital regularly gets abused and insulted for being a white c*** when they don’t get attended to immediately after being triaged (usually as a level 4 or 5 emergency). Should she also lodge racial discrimination complaints every week on the basis of being insulted and offended by their abuse.

    Post a Reply
  6. Why is one identical case in merit different when the person complained about is from the left and the other person middle of the road or right? Please explain Triggs ! !

    Post a Reply
  7. We will not be silenced

    Post a Reply
  8. I replied to an email I received yesterday from the AHRC asking me to substantiate the complaint made by me and – quote ” all males and have individually described themselves in various ways including white, fair skin, Caucasian…” I have responded as best I can, basically requesting that the investigation be followed up. I guess we’ll see…

    Post a Reply
  9. Atrocious double standards are applied here. Even if I have not been previously racially vilified, and I have. Being white and being my first complaint under 18c it should be investigated using your standards Ms Trigg.

    Post a Reply
  10. Clearly racial hatred complaints by white men lack that key “level of substance” which constitutes the threshold of concern in Professor Triggs’ safe space.

    The use of the ‘royal we’, the snooty terms of reference, the straight up mind f**kery of “our role” being one of ‘conciliation’ etc should all recommend the Professor for a Canberra Polished Turd award in the category of Diversity Management.

    But given the treatment of the QUT students at the hands of the AHRC on her watch, she will probably get early retirement. I fear the Polished Turd will never grace her mantelpiece. But her retirement may afford the Professor some time to work on her programming at the hands of the Frankfort School.

    The perfect antidote to the works of the Frankfort School is the writing of Irish Savant. The entire weblog should find its way to her summer reading list. May I recommend that deprogramming begin with Savant’s masterful: “The “Anatomy of a Deplorable”

    NB, it may need to be remarked for the Professor and those in her safe space that Savant is not talking about a gender construct, he is talking about “Now in his sixties, his first experience of ‘white privilege’ would have been at school…”

    Post a Reply
  11. Here we go again… only white people can be racist.
    Do you think blackface is racist? The US film “White Chicks” is about two black men that paint their faces white to look like white women.
    Racism goes both ways.

    Post a Reply
    • Closer to home, have you noticed how aboriginal blokes “white up” to dance tribal dances? How can that not be racist?

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest