Showing posts with label protected group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protected group. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 March 2016

Facebook announces: Feminists are a Protected Group. Non-Feminists to be banned.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/son.jpg
Social Justice Warriors, hard at work redistributing capital.
When a Feminist called me a "white c*nt", and i reported her, you said that didn't violate your standards. When I replied to a feminist who accused me of being a rapist by calling her a "goblin", you locked my account.

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/8/005/0b8/33c/24ca621.jpg

" we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category "

"...protected category..."

Feminists are a protected category. Non-Feminists? I've reported posts by Feminists calling for the death of all men, posts that referred to me and my friends as ravishers of children... and you did nothing, because you play favourites.

You are corrupt.
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAWsAAAAJDJiOGY1OTk0LTY5ODMtNDJkZi1iOTk4LWZmNDgxMTZiMWE0Mw.png
Oh, the irony!
.. and I have to wonder, when your company collapses, because it is run on the basis of ideology rather than business principles, where will you go?

Will your next employer really be thrilled to know that your love of Social Justice will destroy their business next?







As they may edit or delete their statement, I reprinted it here.

https://archive.is/oSoxh
29 Mar 2016 16:45:38 UTC
https://www.facebook.com/fbsafety/?pnref=story

Controversial, Harmful and Hateful Speech on Facebook


Recently there has been some attention given to Facebook’s content policy. The current concern, voiced by Women, Action and The Media, The Everyday Sexism Project, and the coalition they represent, has focused on content that targets women with images and content that threatens or incites gender-based violence or hate. 

Many different groups which have historically faced discrimination in society, including representatives from the Jewish, Muslim, and LGBT communities, have reached out to us in the past to help us understand the threatening nature of content, and we are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback we have received. In light of this recent attention, we want to take this opportunity to explain our philosophy and policies regarding controversial or harmful content, including hate speech, and to explain some of the steps we are taking to reduce the proliferation of content that could create an unsafe environment for users.

Facebook’s mission has always been to make the world more open and connected. We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content, messages and ideas freely, while still respecting the rights of others. When people can engage in meaningful conversations and exchanges with their friends, family and communities online, amazingly positive things can happen.

To facilitate this goal, we also work hard to make our platform a safe and respectful place for sharing and connection.  This requires us to make difficult decisions and balance concerns about free expression and community respect.  We prohibit content deemed to be directly harmful, but allow content that is offensive or controversial. We define harmful content as anything organizing real world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual (e.g. bullying).  A list of prohibited categories of content can be found in our Community Standards at www.facebook.com/communitystandards.

In addition, our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (www.facebook.com/legal/terms) prohibits “hate speech.” While there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, as a platform we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease. We work hard to remove hate speech quickly, however there are instances of offensive content, including distasteful humor, that are not hate speech according to our definition. In these cases, we work to apply fair, thoughtful, and scalable policies. This approach allows us to continue defending the principles of freedom of self-expression on which Facebook is founded. We’ve also found that posting  insensitive or cruel content often results in many more people denouncing it than supporting it on Facebook. That being said, we realize that our defense of freedom of expression should never be interpreted as license to bully, harass, abuse or threaten violence. We are committed to working to ensure that this does not happen within the Facebook community. We believe that the steps outlined below will help us achieve this goal.

We’ve built industry leading technical and human systems to encourage people using Facebook to report violations of our terms and developed sophisticated tools to help our teams evaluate the reports we receive and make or escalate the difficult decisions about whether reported content is controversial, harmful or constitutes hate speech. As a result, we believe we are able to remove the vast majority of content that violates our standards, even as we scale those systems to cover our more than 1 billion users, and even as we seek to protect users from those who seek to circumvent our guidelines by reposting content that has been taken down time and time again.

In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate. In some cases, content is not being removed as quickly as we want.  In other cases, content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of violations, but the guidelines used by these systems have failed to capture all the content that violates our standards. We need to do better – and we will.


As part of doing better, we will be taking the following steps, that we will begin rolling out immediately:

  • We will complete our review and update the guidelines that our User Operations team uses to evaluate reports of violations of our Community Standards around hate speech.  To ensure that these guidelines reflect best practices, we will solicit feedback from legal experts and others, including representatives of the women's coalition and other groups that have historically faced discrimination.
  • We will update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts and others, including members of the women’s coalition to identify resources or highlight areas of particular concern for inclusion in the training. 
  • We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create.  A few months ago we began testing a new requirement that the creator of any content containing cruel and insensitive humor include his or her authentic identity for the content to remain on Facebook.  As a result, if an individual decides to publicly share cruel and insensitive content, users can hold the author accountable and directly object to the content. We will continue to develop this policy based on the results so far, which indicate that it is helping create a better environment for Facebook users.
  • We will establish more formal and direct lines of communications with representatives of groups working in this area, including women's groups, to assure expedited treatment of content they believe violate our standards. We have invited representatives of the women Everyday Sexism to join the less formal communication channels Facebook has previously established with other groups.
  • We will encourage the Anti-Defamation League’s Anti-Cyberhate working group and other international working groups that we currently work with on these issues to include representatives of the women’s coalition to identify how to balance considerations of free expression, to undertake research on the effect of online hate speech on the online experiences of members of groups that have historically faced discrimination in society, and to evaluate progress on our collective objectives.

These are complicated challenges and raise complex issues. Our recent experience reminds us that we can’t answer them alone. Facebook is strongest when we are engaging with the Facebook community over how best to advance our mission.  As we’ve grown to become a global service with more than one billion people, we’re constantly re-evaluating our processes and policies.  We’ll also continue to expand our outreach to responsible groups and experts who can help and support us in our efforts to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.

- Marne Levine, VP of Global Public Policy

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Men are not regarded as 'Human' thanks to Feminist legislation in Australia

Update 19th Nov 2016

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs

Female only job categories now becoming common


Update: 16th Sep 2016


Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men - the AHCR strikes again, ruling that discrimination is fine against men - because they are violent.

Well, lesbian DV is higher than straight DV - so can we discriminate against lesbians, I wonder?


This story follows on from ANZ Australia announces it will now pay men less for the same work than women




I have confirmation, in writing, from the Australian government, that men are NOT protected by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) - equality only applies if it benefit women.



It is perfectly legal in Australia to underpay men, and that the AHRC is all in favour of it.

Of course, by their own logic, they should pay asians less than white people - because asians save more.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

Does this make sense to anybody outside of SocJus?

Dear Brett

Thank you for your email below and apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Thank you for raising these concerns with us.  ANZ recently announced that they would pay female employees an additional annual superannuation contribution. The purpose of this measure is to address the fact that women have lower retirement savings than men.  This measure is one of a range of measures ANZ is taking to address inequality between men and women in its workforce.  These include: 

• measures to ensure equality in recruitment, promotion and remuneration between men and women
• measures to promote flexible work arrangements
• payment of superannuation contributions on behalf of employees on parental leave
• providing a child care allowance. 

The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) provides that a person may take 'special measures' for the purpose of achieving substantive equality between men and women.

The phrases ‘special measures’ and ‘substantive equality’ are not defined in the SDA.  However the secondary materials, as well as the text of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, suggest that special measures should be measures designed to overcome inequality caused by historical and structural barriers faced by women.  Generally, the Commission’s view is that special measures must be intended to address such barriers, and must be reasonably capable of being characterised as addressing such barriers. 

The Commission has no power to certify special measures under the SDA.  However, the measure ANZ has implemented, in the context of the other measures the ANZ is taking, appears to be designed to address an inequality in retirement savings between male and female employees.  As such, in the Commission's view, it appears to be consistent with the objects of the SDA. 

Thank you again for your inquiry.

Best regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Australian Human Rights Commission [mailto:webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au]
Sent: Sunday, 2 August 2015 3:55 AM
To: Communications Unit
Subject: Form submission from: Contact us

Submitted on Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 3:54am
Submitted by anonymous user: 14.200.204.35
Submitted values are:

  ==Web enquiry form==
    My enquiry is regarding: Communications - <a
    href="mailto:communications@humanrights.gov.au">communications@humanrights.gov.au</a>
    (Messages for the Commissioners, queries about information on our
    website or just to lodge your opinion or comments, or anything
    else that doesn't fit in the other categories)
    Name: Brett Caton
    Email:
    Comments:
    The ANZ has announced it will be paying males less than females
    for the same work, and claims that it has sought permission from
    you for this deed, and that you endorse such discriminatory
    practises.
   
    "As a result of this we were advised by the Australian Human
    Rights Commission that they believe this initiative to be
    “consistent with the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act”
    and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission granted a 10 year
    exemption"
   
    Is their interpretation correct? Do you really stand for
    equality, but only in the Animal Farm use of the term?
   

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/node/9203/submission/26273

***********************************************************************
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together
with any attachments.
***********************************************************************

Further Reading:


" the AHRC differentiates formal from substantive equality.

Formal equality is equa­lity of all citizens before the law and commonly ­associated with equal opportunity.

Substantive equality is inequality under the law in favour of state-designated minority groups ­towards equality of outcome.

Substantive equality thus reverses genuine equality. It is a prime ­example of the neo-­Marxist double­think that characterises contemporary Left thought and undermines universal human rights. "

(source)





From the job search above:

Lifestyle Support Worker (Female) Sherwood
Private Individual through Homeswest Inc - Sherwood QLD
40+ year old female applicants only. Person required Thursdays 9am to 6pm and as a back up -

Case Worker in Training
The Salvation Army - 4,015 reviews - Gold Coast QLD +1 location
Casual
As this role is in a Women's only accommodation centre, only female applicants need apply. Salvation Army Still Waters is a crisis accommodation centre for...

Research Assistant
Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia - Sydney NSW
$91,568 a year
R&DVSA holds an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act and only employs female staff. Orientation/training is paid, and is scheduled to commence Wednesday...

Case Managers
B Miles Women's Foundation - Sydney NSW
B Miles Women's Foundation holds an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act and only employs female staff....

Corporate Receptionist
Bridge Consulting - 2 reviews - Sydney NSW
Please submit your resume in "Word" format only. Our client values diversity in the workplace and encourages applications from females, Aboriginals and Torres... [not explicit but it's coded that they are discriminating on the grounds of sex and race]

Senior Accounts Officer-
Kelly Services - 7,060 reviews - Gold Coast QLD
Be able to work well within an all female accounts team including Management. Please forward a cover letter addressed to Sheryll Dobson that outlines your...

Senior Accounts officer - Manufacturing Industry Exp essenti...
Kelly Services - 7,060 reviews - Gold Coast QLD
Be able to work well within an all female accounts team including Management. Only candidates who have the required Manufacturing Asset reconciliation...

Support Worker
Southern Cross Community Healthcare - Parramatta NSW
Females preferred to start training ASAP. This position is only open to Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents....

So that's 8 (possibly 7; might be a duplication?) on the 1st page.. I found 30 pages of these there, but it's hard to get an exact answer because there's no standardised format.

However, note they keep referring to the exemption - that's the loophole the AHRC provided to make sure businesses can discriminate against men, but not women.

I tried searching for male only jobs by the same method but couldn't find any; searching by "male only" gave 4 results including...


General Practitioner Opportunities
Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (CAAC) - Alice Springs NT
$172,385 - $198,965 a year - Full-time, Part-time
General Practitioner - Male Health (PN811). This is a male identified position. Our Ingkintja Male Health Service and Men's Shed is a male-only place providing...

Aboriginal males > white women so you can discriminate in that case.

Inner South Community Health - Melbourne VIC
Male Only worker as per Equal Opportunity Act (2010). ? Prevent male violence through challenging the attitudes and behaviour of men and male youth....

This is a feminist propaganda job, so it doesn't surprise me that it's exempt from normal law.

Chief Officer
Superyacht Crew International - Australia
Permanent
Male only due to cabin arrangements. This is a great job for a suitably experienced Superyacht Chief Officer....

Probably a good example of a male only job, but i wouldn't mind betting they could get it challenged; after all, it's less efficient to have gender neutral toilets and they seem to be moving in anyway.