EVEN "UNCONSCIOUS" DISCRIMINATION IS ILLEGAL IN AUSTRALIA

But, as in Britain, it is the anti-discrimination bodies themselves that discriminate most. The comment below refers to a recent Australian court case where a group of older women failed to get jobs as stewardesses (Whoops! "Flight Attendants") with an Australian airline and sued the airline for discrimination -- successfully

Odd times, when Virgin Blue must hand a woman $5000 because its staff "unconsciously" liked someone else more. Don't daydream in Queensland, folks. Those thoughts could cost you. It was Queensland's anti-discrimination tribunal that this week ruled Virgin discriminated against eight women, aged 36 to 56, refusing to hire them as flight attendants because they thought them too old. It's not that Virgin consciously avoided hiring older hosties. Even the tribunal said that. In fact, these women were interviewed despite giving their age. But they then had to audition to show they had "Virgin flair".

Personally, I find "Virgin flair" as welcome as a drunk in the aisle seat. Those jokes and ecstatic welcomes are on the needy side of pleasing. But Virgin knows better than me -- or a tribunal -- how to run an airline. And so it made applicants do routines with Mickey Mouse ears and a feather boa. Not surprisingly, it seemed younger applicants had more Virgin Flair than did the older women, not one of whom got the job. I suspect a 50-year-old has too much self-respect to happily caper around cattle class singing goofy songs.

But this was bad. Tribunal member Douglas Savage, QC, decided the young Virgin staff running the auditions had, without thinking, identified with applicants who looked like them. Young. Fresh. As he snapped: "A fun person." Actually, hadn't they simply figured parties swing better with younger hosts? But perhaps that's not a smart argument to put in a tribunal whose sombre members aren't all in the first riot of youth.

Indeed, Savage ruled the older applicants were kept out by nothing more than unconscious prejudice, and ordered compensation. And the evidence that clinched it -- the Virgin Blue Clue -- was that only one of 750 attendants hired by Virgin at the time was over 36. But let's check out this analysis in other fields. Let's try it, for instance, on the anti-discrimination bodies. Gosh, the head and deputy head of Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Commission, and its tribunal chief, are all women. In Victoria, four of the five Equal Opportunity Commission members are women, too, and the lone male is gay. What odds, when most top lawyers are straight men?

The Virgin Blue Clue would have us think this proves discrimination. But, of course, that's false, because anti-discrimination commissars are chosen not for their gender, but expertise. And to accuse anyone of getting a job through even "unconscious discrimination" would be dangerous. The thoughts of some people, at least, are still private. And thank heavens.

(From Andrew Bolt)



CALIFORNIAN FOOD CORRECTNESS CATCHING UP WITH BRITAIN

Nobody ever considers that what you eat might be your own business. The Orwellian future is creeping up on us.

Rosemont High's lunchtime scene is typical of many California schools, and one that will have to change radically to conform to new state laws that restrict sales of so-called "competitive" foods and beverages - a category that takes in all the snack foods and vending machine items sold at schools outside the federally approved breakfast and lunch programs. Although the state already has in place some food sale restrictions for elementary and junior high schools, the new laws tighten the guidelines and extend them into high schools, where junk food sales are rampant.

The laws take effect incrementally, starting in 2007. One bans sales of sodas and other high-sugar drinks during school hours. The other imposes strict limits on the sugar, fat and caloric content of all foods not sold as part of a full and balanced meal. While parents can continue to send their kids to school with treats, health advocates hope the new restrictions will go a long way toward dismantling the snack food culture ingrained in public schools: PTA bake sales, Funyuns-filled vending machines, cafeteria Eskimo Pies - they all could be things of the past.

With obesity now the nation's No. 1 health concern, many schools in the region have tried to ratchet down sales of high-fat and high-calorie snacks. But given the popularity of the less nutritious fare at schools such as Rosemont - and the hefty profits the student store generates - the transition will be a hard one. California is at the forefront of a national movement to reclaim school food service programs from PepsiCo, Frito-Lay, Nabisco and other snack food brands that are popular but not necessarily nutritious. Indeed, the new laws, signed with fanfare in September by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been hailed as the nation's most sweeping. But California's experience until now, and concerns expressed by those responsible for implementing the changes, offer clues to the rocky path ahead:

* Many extracurricular programs are funded through the sales of snack food and sodas.

* As it is, schools routinely ignore or misinterpret existing state and federal regulations regarding food sales.

* State education officials have few resources to help administer and enforce food regulations.

* Students have grown accustomed to eating junk food at lunch and many dislike the cafeteria alternatives.

Rosemont's experience offers a good example of the challenges. The Rosemont student store, which opens promptly at the lunch hour, earns up to $500 per day. About 30 percent of the proceeds are funneled to various student activities, including Spirit Week and the printing of the school newspaper. The store also provides work experience for members of student government. Although the store offers some healthier snacks, such as Nutri-Grain bars, the most popular items are the least nutritious. The Ramen noodle soup, for example, has 290 calories and contains 1,190 milligrams of sodium and 12 grams of fat. The Flamin' Hot Cheetos, at 170 calories per serving, have 11 grams of fat and 250 milligrams of sodium....

Cindy Currier, Rosemont's student activities adviser and a former physical education teacher, oversees the student store. She acknowledged that many of her customers consume junk food for lunch. "It bothers me that they are not eating healthy," she said. Still, like many school officials, Currier is convinced that when the student store stops selling such items, kids will just buy them off campus, depriving the school of revenue. Currier said students will conduct research to find out what items their peers will buy and then adjust the store's offerings to comply with the new laws. But she's in no hurry to institute changes. "I don't want to see that, because our sales will go down," she said.

Rosemont Principal Rob Jones echoed the concerns. "If we don't replace that funding, all of those activities will have to be looked at: drama, speech, debate and sports clubs." .....

Phyllis Bramson-Paul, director of the Nutrition Services Division at the state Department of Education, acknowledged the compliance problems. While the department supports the new food laws, she said, the laws don't come with additional money or resources to help with implementation and enforcement. Nevertheless, she said, she is meeting with a nutrition committee appointed by the state Board of Education to address the problems.

Back at Rosemont, Deanna Mitchell, food service site supervisor, said she is torn about the upcoming changes. While she appreciates the financial boost the student store provides, she thinks restricting sales of chips and candy could improve revenue for her meal program - not to mention student health. "Maybe the kids would be hungry and look at what is available, and realize, 'Wow, that's not so bad after all,' " she said.

More here



GRAVE DANGER TO FREE SPEECH IN BRITAIN

The tension between free speech and the safety of the population is a genuine one. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, has just modified part of the Terrorism Bill which dealt with "glorifying" terrorism. Imams and others will now be prosecuted only if their remarks are seen as as inducements to further terrorist acts. Most people will have little problem with such a law. The fact that certain people, mainly radical Muslims, have abused our tolerance to incite acts of terror has rightly provoked anger.

Where there is a problem, however, is with another government assault on free speech that has no direct connection with terrorism - the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. If it becomes law, anybody who publishes or says anything "likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred" will be committing an offence that could make them liable to a seven-year prison term.

This bill has so far attracted most attention because of the efforts of comedians such as Rowan Atkinson. They have argued that it would prevent them poking even gentle fun at any religion. It also featured during the election campaign when Mr Clarke - billing himself as "Labour's home secretary" - wrote to every mosque in the country highlighting Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition to the proposals. There was a clear implication that the government was trying to secure the Muslim vote.

However, the issue goes beyond the freedom of comedians to tell jokes and it should concern us all. This misguided and unnecessary bill has already passed through the House of Commons, winning a third reading in July by 301 votes to 229. Not for the first time, the task of preserving our ancient freedoms falls to the House of Lords.

The bill, according to one lord, "is the most illiberal measure that has been brought before your lordships in the 18 years I have been privileged to serve here . . . It is also irrational in that it is neither directed at, nor will it solve, the problems that gave rise to it. What it does is reduce freedom of expression - there is no doubt about that at all". The author of those comments was Lord Peston of Mile End, one of Labour's peers.

If that does not make the government pause for thought, other objections should. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the Liberal Democrat peer and a noted expert on free speech and human rights, points out that the powers in the bill are "sweepingly broad", they apply to words spoken in private as well as in public, and unlike most other serious offences they require no specific criminal intent. Lord Hunt of Wirral points out that similar proposals were rejected by parliament in 1936, 1965 and 1981 and that "no generation of politicians has the right to play fast and loose with our fundamental freedoms".

Most devastatingly of all, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former lord chancellor, notes that the bill carries with it the worst of unintended consequences. It could, he argues, mean that anybody criticising radical imams for poisoning the minds of impressionable young men could find themselves subject to prosecution. The Terrorism Bill and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill are pulling in opposite directions.

Overseeing all this in the House of Lords is Lord Falconer, Tony Blair's former flatmate. As lord chancellor he has shown a sloppy disregard for ancient traditions and freedoms. This bill will achieve nothing that cannot be done under existing laws while representing a dangerous attack on free speech. It is opposed by most religious leaders. It must be stopped

Source