The Australian Human Rights Commission has long had a black-armband view of Australian society. They believe the nation is full of racists, sexists and bigots who need their free speech stifled. They also believe we need cultural diversity enforced upon us through the opening up of our borders and more affirmative action for positions of authority.
This mindset was set in motion when Gillian Triggs was President of the Human Rights Commission and remains her legacy, the person who has taken the baton as Australia basher in chief is Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane. He has a history of seeing bigots everywhere and has to date complained about too many white people on Australian television and also spent taxpayer funds on disgraceful advertising campaign slurring all white males as racist (he spends this money in addition to his 300k taxpayer-funded salary).
The Human Rights Commission to give the air of authority to its claims about Australian it commissions regular reports, most of the time these are flawed in both sampling and methodology. The worst example was their national report on sexual assault and harassment at Australian universities which alleged that 51% of Australian women had been harassed (which included things such as staring) but had only a 9.7% response rate.
Now the Human Rights Commission released another similarly flawed document, the Leading for Change report on cultural diversity and leadership. It analyzed the racial backgrounds of over 2,400 senior leaders across business, government and academia. It found that those from non-European and Indigenous backgrounds make up an estimated 24 percent of the Australian population however they only backgrounds account for only 5 percent of senior leaders.
These statistics allowed Tim Soutphommasane to once again complain that “These are not what you’d expect from one of the world’s greatest multicultural countries” and that we still needed to confront the fact we are not an inclusive nation “an insistence that we don’t see ethnic or racial difference and moreover we should not point out ethnic or racial difference — and that stifles examination and prevents Australians from taking more muscular action on multiculturalism”.
The flaw in this report which concludes that Australia is discriminating against non-white races is that it only includes three professions: politics, senior business and academia. Many Australians know first hand when accessing a variety of goods and services they are greeted by a diverse range of races. What about analyzing the race of small business owners, we know for example that many Asian and Indian Australians run small businesses which is a major contribution to Australia’s economy. What about including medicine, law and finance? Is the Human Rights Commission concluding you are only a success if you are in the field of politics, senior business or academia?
Soutphommasane also called for employers to be required to report diversity statistics in the same manner that gender is. It would appear that racially profiling people is okay if it’s in the name of cultural diversity. The conclusion of this report is that those white people who are in these three fields are there because of white privilege and we need some sort of affirmative action to correct this (meaning racial discrimination). If other races choose to enter other professions shouldn’t we just let that be, instead of concluding racism?
But of course, the spin put on this report by the mainstream media (even the New York Times thought it was newsworthy) is that white people still run everything in Australia and that we still have elements of the White Australia Policy. The reality is, however, it is once again selective reporting by the Human Rights Commission designed to further their divisive identity politics narrative.