|
Skip to comments | 
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll
NZCPR
Forum
Opinion piece by Josie Bullock
26 August 06
Politically
Correctness a la The Office of Proceedings
I first met the Director of
the Office of Proceedings for the Human Rights' Review
Tribunal a year ago. Perhaps I should have realised from his
title that his organisation would be highly bureaucratic and
probably a vast waste of space, time, energy and tax-payers'
dollars. The Human Rights' Commission offices on Queen Street
in Auckland, where we met, were huge with panoramic views, but
there was little, if anything, going on there. I had been
advised to take my case on the basis of human rights, rather
than employment, given that it involved sexism.
To summarise events, in
December 2004, while working as a probation officer for the
Department of Corrections, I sat at the front at a poroporoaki
(Maori farewell) for offenders. (Only men are supposed to sit
in the front row.) After a lengthy investigation, I was
eventually given an oral warning for my "offensive
behaviour". Being given an oral warning for sticking up
for women's rights stuck in my craw, so I went to the media,
and in October 2005, got the sack for doing so.
I had rung the Human Rights'
Commission when I got the oral warning, only to be told by the advisor
on their helpline that I should be respectful of Maori
culture. Given that response, I didn't bother contacting them
again.
However, when I got suspended
in July last year, I was advised that I could go to the Office
of Proceedings, which would take the case on my behalf to the
Human Rights' Review Tribunal. The Office of Proceedings is
supposed to provide legal help for those cases it believes
should be taken to the Tribunal.
At first I was told that the
Office of Proceedings would be able to process my application
without further ado, but they then advised me that I would
have to go through mediation with the Human Rights' Commission
first. Needless to say, that involved more bureaucracy, and
with the Department of Corrections dragging the chain, this
mediation, which turned out to be a waste of time, didn't take
place until March this year. Then it was back to the
Office of Proceedings which spent several months deciding
whether or not to take my case.
Finally, at the end of July,
having first been interviewed by the Director of the Office of
Proceedings, Robert Hesketh, in August last year, I was sent a
letter, telling me that no, they wouldn't be taking my case.
Given the politically correct
nature of our bureaucracies now, I wasn't all that surprised
as my case involved criticising the fact that an outmoded
Maori practice was being introduced into a government
department.
However, it is depressing to
know that our institutions of justice have sunk to this level
where they are more worried about being politically correct
than they are about upholding principles of equality.
Mr Hesketh, the Director
of the Office of Proceedings, wrote me a 14-page letter,
telling me why they wouldn't be taking the case. You'd think
that it would have been quicker to prepare the case than to
write such a long-winded letter.
One of the reasons for not
taking my case was a lack of time. (Amazingly, Mr Hesketh did
have time to spend a week at the end of July at the
Asia-Pacific conference.)
Another reason was that my
case didn't involve "profound harm", in the way of
violence or abuse. (One would think that such matters would be
dealt with by the police.)
A further reason was
that there were lots of other cases which the Office of
Proceedings was taking on which were much more important than
mine.
Unfortunately, Mr Hesketh
wasn't able to tell me what these cases were due to
"privacy reasons". He did direct me to the
Human Rights' Commission's website where you can look at the annual
reports. Looking at the annual reports for the last five
years, one of which I couldn't open, these are the only cases taken
on by the Office of Proceedings which were listed.
1) A woman with a moko who was
asked to leave a pub which had a sign outside saying "No
Facial Tattoos".
2) A man who took a job which
involved working on Saturdays, but who, for religious reasons,
didn't want to work on Saturdays.
3) A couple with a disabled
child who were told by a daycare centre that the centre would
only take the child for a limited number of hours per day.
4) A dispute over whether or
not airlines should have to provide free oxygen to
passengers with health problems.
5) A sexual harassment
case, where a woman had had an affair with a man at work, had
ended it, but was still being hassled by him.
Frankly, I was struck by the
pifflingness of these cases. The Office of Proceedings felt
they were important enough to detail in annual reports, yet my
case was apparently so piffling that it wasn't even worthy of
being taken up. Let's face it, such cases as those above
are politically correct, which is probably why they could
be safely taken on by the Office of Proceedings. They
daren't rock the boat, dare they?
So, I will have to take the
case to the Tribunal myself. I've wasted a lot of time running
up blind alleys, trying to get the help I believe I'm entitled
to.
I hate to think of the wasted
tax dollars that go into organisations such as the Office of
Proceedings, which do way more harm than good by being
politically correct instead of upholding human rights.
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published on the READERS FORUM. To view
>>>
|
