what_katy_did wrote on Nov 12
th, 2010 at 7:18am:
... wrote on Nov 11
th, 2010 at 4:57pm:
Equitist wrote on Nov 11
th, 2010 at 4:19pm:
Apparently, the year 11 girl Hannah did not break any documented school rules - and she was not suspended or expelled, rather she is being withdrawn from the school due to parental concern over targeted discrimination...
If anything, it would seem that the school's Principal has been making up special discriminatory rules around that particular girl's case as it went along...
It has been claimed, that a Yr 10 boy (who cannot be a student at the all-girls school and cannot therefore be a fee-paying student) was ultimately permitted to attend that Formal as a 'guest' of another Yr 11 girl...
However, the girl Hannah's Yr 10 girlfriend is/was a fee-paying student at the school...
So, if that claim is true, then the school ought to be in deep shyte - especially if girl Hannah was (as has been alleged) the only student who was asked to provide details of the age of her intended Formal 'guest'...
You'd think if that was true, then the EOC would have made a ruling against the school pretty quick smart? But they havent.....
Wrong. This is the reason it was
dismissed:
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 49ZO
Education
49ZO Education
(1) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of homosexuality:
(a) by refusing or failing to accept the person’s application for admission as a student, or
(b) in the terms on which it is prepared to admit the person as a student.
(2) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of homosexuality:
(a)
by denying the student access, or limiting the student’s access, to any benefit provided by the educational authority, or (b) by expelling the student or subjecting the student to any other detriment.
(3) Nothing in this section applies to or in respect of a private educational authority. Sorry, folks, to dredge up a post from the middle of the thread, but I've been offline for a couple of days...
I'm not sure that the case was "dismissed" per se - because the parties were sent into mediation (which appears to be the preferred method for all Commissions and Ombudsman organisations - as they do not wish to set a legal precedent by imposing a decision, rather they tend to guide the parties on the basis of their likely decision)...
As I basically said the other day, I reckon that the Commission ought to automatically prosecute clear acts of institutional discrimination - because an act of wanton discrimination ought not be swept under a bureaucratic carpet...
If mediation is to be utilised, then it should only be limited to negotiating the bases of the future relationship betwixt the parties...
Anyways, from where I'm sitting, this seems to be an anomaly in the Anti-Discrimination Act - which
generally focuses on the inherent nature and effect of
acts of discrimination rather than on the rights of the perpetrator...
After all, a private commercial organisation is not normally exempt from discrimination against homosexuals just because it is a 'private' organisation...
What's worse, IM(not-so)HO, is that so-called 'private' schools receive substantial public funding and are therefore not entirely 'private'...
I'd also suggest that we Aussies ought to be careful not to support discrimination by one particular private institution, since that paves the way for future discrimination by other private institutions...
Either way, the school at issue ought not be excused for its targeted and sustained maltreatment of these vulnerable girls...
As things stand, injustice has been allowed to prevail - and this serves the best overall interests of neither the complainant/s nor the broader community...