Strange things can be discovered by answering your phone to unlisted numbers.
The usual thing is to realise you definitely haven’t prepared enough for your future by purchasing enough life and funeral insurance, but occasionally you gain some first hand and insightful knowledge on just what exactly the bloated parasite that is the Australian Human Rights Commission is currently wasting your tax payer dollars over. Your Author, in a Walkley Award level act of investigative journalism, can reveal that the Human Rights Commission is now targeting sexual harassment.
Clearly not content to sit on their gender neutral laurels after completing… ummm… whatever they actually do with all that money they receive in funding, the Commission is currently paying research companies to cold call random victims in order to discover just how sexually harassed the average Australian really is.
Now let us take a quick moment here to point out that we at XYZ in no way encourage bullying, and do not believe that people should have to go through their lives having to
put up with other people’s pointless bullshit. There are enough idiots in the world and we would suggest that readers try and structure their lives in such a manner that they do not become another one.
Having said that, this survey was so woke it was a trigger warning away from being an arts study with it’s own hashtag. The questions begin…
No let’s go back slightly. Before the questions begin, the victim is told that if they experience any distress they can opt out without judgement and that support services are available. Seems that in the Commission’s Brave New World even phone calls shall be provided with Safe Spaces.
Once that is out of the way, and before they changed their mind about offering the participant a nice quick Welcome to Country, the questions proper began by first asking which of several genders the surveyed preferred to be known as. Then there was a quick explanation of Intersex just in case one felt like they wanted a piece of that as well.
Questions then proceed in a reasonably predictable manner. In context they are harmless enough questions, but questions that also avoid the important context of asking what is actually offensive. In their own words harassment, sexual or otherwise, is when a person is subject to unwanted actions that causes them distress. Simply seeking a yes/no answer to ‘Have you ever been subject to unwanted staring?’ is probably less important in context then asking ‘Are you an easily triggered Snowflake who takes offense readily?’
The questions progressed. Exactly what would have happened if Your Author had answered ‘Yes’ to any of these question we may unfortunately discover, but from the general tone one suspects the expanding questions would have been along the lines of ‘It was a Cis White Man, wasn’t it?’ and ‘Go on, he was white, you can tell me.’
The questions finished by then asking if the participant had ever been a victim of rape, a question that disturbingly suggests that either the Commission casually likes to equate harassment with acts of violence or that they are projecting a desire to prove a direct link between the two.
Also, was one an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander, because deep down someone out there must be racist.
There is a saying that a person should never ask a question they do not already know the answer to. Within some situations this can be good advice, but in others it is simply a method to reinforce the agenda you are supporting. The Human Rights Commission are no doubt going to soon publish their findings, and readers would probably be extremely safe in predicting the results with ‘prove’ that Australia and Australians are deeply offensive and sexually abusive people. Actions to combat this epidemic must be taken and the Commission no doubt must be given greater authority in which to act.
We’ve been Your XYZ.
Photo by Themeplus