Shannon Fentiman is the Minister for Justice, Minister for Women, and soon to be the former Queensland Attorney-General. She is also Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s heir apparent.

But none of this is enough. There has been a certain amount of mission creep, which is actually creepier than it might sound.

Apparently not content with representing the 51 per cent of Queenslanders born female (the only minority in intersexual politics that happens to be a majority), she is now making a pitch to include boys that want to be girls.

On last Tuesday she declared that:

‘Any woman who identifies as a woman is a woman, and I take a really inclusive approach, and we want to govern for all Queenslanders, and all people who identify as a woman are part of our policies and strategies to gender equality, because gender equality is inclusive, you know, it’s not one group advancing at the expense of another, let’s bring everyone across.’

Frankly, I think it is easier, and more rational, to believe God created the world in 6 days than accept men can be women. No one was there at the beginning to observe and confirm the former, while today all you need to do is take a DNA swab and voila! the latter is not true.

Queensland, generally, is in such a mess… Youth crime is out of control – partly because of the lax laws, but also because of some of the nutty decisions by judges and magistrates.

But why would you expect the judiciary to be sane when the definition of a woman escapes the government?

The nuttiness extends to the state’s Human Rights Commission. This must be the worst human rights commission in the whole country, apart from all the others.

When the population was imprisoned in their own homes, did they ever say a word? What about when Queenslanders were forbidden to attend weddings and funerals, or cross borders for work? Did they object to the population being coerced into take an experimental gene therapy in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Did they step up? What about when the 10 per cent who refused to be coerced were banned from working by employers, worshipping by churches, or going out?

But all of those are sins of omission. We are now seeing an escalation.

The HRC has just made 142 recommendations for changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act that will put the ‘micro’ into minority rights, empower litigious lawyers and complainants and upturn the rule of law. The HRC (which ought to be renamed the Special Groups Minority Grievance Agency), appears keen to legislate politeness, licence grievance-mongering, enable extortion, and empower offence.

It has reviewed the rights it protects and is determined to become more ‘contemporary’. (What can be ‘more’ contemporary about rights? If they are not timeless, I’d suggest they aren’t genuine rights.)

This review comes with its own mission creep. It proposes to increase the number of protected categories under the act. You will now be protected from discrimination if it occurs on the basis of a criminal record; weight, height, size, birthmarks, scars; subject to domestic or family violence; homelessness; or because you are a sex worker.

The gender non-conforming will also be protected.

So… Will an accounting practice be found to discriminate because they won’t hire someone who has been convicted of fraud? Or will a removalist firm will be forced to take on a 40 kg girl who identifies as a 100 kg bloke?

And what does discrimination mean? Not what you might think it does. From the report:

• equal application of a rule to different groups can have unequal results or outcomes; and
• the achievement of substantive equality may require making reasonable accommodations and implementing affirmative measures.

If picking the best doesn’t lead to the distribution of characteristics the Commission deems necessary, then you are probably an illegal discriminator.

And if you are taken to the Commission don’t expect to get a fair shake. They propose to reverse the onus of proof.

Once a prima facie case has been established, it is up to the respondent to prove their innocence. It is generally accepted that you can’t prove a negative, but in madcap Queensland it is the order of the day.

And the Commission will also be able to demand documents without a warrant.

Vale Rule of Law and Rule of Logic.

Another innovation is to load up criminal charges more heavily if they are partly motivated by discrimination. This would mean that if when I punch you I yell out, ‘I hate you, you short fat pr**k!’ I’ll get some additional years, because assault isn’t just assault anymore. It is worse if you commit a thought crime simultaneously, even if the result is the same.

Currently, only individuals can bring cases, but this is obviously unfair, as individuals may have limited resources to persecute/prosecute antagonists. The Commission proposes that organisations can bring a case as well.

That ought to really screw defendants, and it will likely multiply the amount of work for lawyers as it will foster the founding of organisations whose only role is to find offenders to persecute and will raise funds on that basis.

If you’ve followed some of these discrimination cases, you’ll know how easy it is for resourceless plaintiffs to bankrupt defendants just by enmeshing them in the process. Imagine what a well-resourced plaintiff industry will be able to do.

Volunteer organisations currently get a pass from the legislation, but no longer. The report recommends that:

The Act should not include the provision that excludes from the operation of the Act those associations established for social, literary, cultural, political, sporting, athletic, recreational, community service or other similar lawful purposes which do not carry out their purposes for the purpose of making a profit.

If someone makes a complaint because your not-for-profit doesn’t appear diverse enough, even though you’ve equally applied a rule (see above) to the extent that there is a prima facie case, then some other not-for-profit can come along and make you a for-loss while you futilely try to prove the negative, gasp and go under.

Religious schools are also targeted. You can select your religious staff on the basis they are religious, but that’s it. We couldn’t have religious schools teaching religious values in an English or History class, could we? Or expect staff to model out a religious morality and ethic? Why shouldn’t Satanists be employed in Christian or Muslim schools?

And the monthly church service? The kids don’t have to go to that either. You might be able to make attendance at school sport compulsory, but not the group expression of religious belief and community.

But let’s give the Commission its due. It does appear to realise that it might lack something itself and does raise the issue of the diversity of commissioners.

And diversity should be a key issue. Back to where we started. Where’s the diversity in gender if only women can be women?

As the Minister says, we have to be ‘inclusive, you know, it’s not one group advancing at the expense of another’. Except it’s not any group advancing at the expense of another. We’re not advancing we’re retreating from civilisation faster than a Russian column leaving Ukraine.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in