Talk:LGBTQ rights in Queensland

Unsourced claim

@Lmharding On what basis are you claiming that anti-discrimination laws are "almost Never enforced"? Please do not add it again without a source as you did here and here. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In practice, those facing discrimination on the basis of gender identity have faced difficulties in pursuing anti-discrimination claims – in its 2013 annual report, the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland noted that a single gender identity claim – 0.2% of its work – had been upheld. Trans men and women potentially face years waiting for their claims to be resolved, with little support available for people outside south-east Queensland and Cairns.

All you have to do is read the section, it's not that hard. Lmharding (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Your rudeness continues unabated.

I have indented your post for you. I struggle with a disability of vision. Your refusal to abide by Talk Page etiquette makes my difficulty in following much greater than it need be. Can you please revise WP:TALKPAGE#Indentation?

I read the section and the source, before I reverted. (I always do). You are imposing a conclusion through WP:Synth, as is your wont.

Neither the source nor the article state "Almost never enforced". Following WP:BRD means you will not reinstate this without further discussion or more sources. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding: There is no justification for continuing to insert "almost never enforced" or "almost never well-enforced". The Sunshine Coast Daily source and the discussion in article section do not attribute the low rate of claims upheld to poor enforcement. To say "almost never enforced" is to impose a conclusion that is not present in the source and is therefore WP:SYNTH. There are many reasons for the low numbers in this case, all probably outside the scope of this article. It's a problem, but not the one you think. (OTH, I suppose not a "problem" for you; you'd be quite pleased, I guess. Anyway, I'll still include you in the intentions for my rosary.)

Either way, can you please not reintroduce material that has already been challenged, without at least contributing further discussion or sources. That is not really following WP policy on consensus. This is not 4chan. Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/12/unions-and-law-groups-push-to-scrap-queensland-clause-allowing-religious-bodies-to-sack-openly-lgbtq-people Lmharding (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Not well enforced

Not sure if the above plain reference is intended as some kind of reply to the discussion in last #Unsourced claim section of poor enforcement or about the conversion therapy ban having religious exemptions. This new source is about an exemption for religious organisations—for employment only. It is a good source for that, but it has nothing to do with the above discussion in regards to level of enforcement. It is silent on Commonwealth protections all together. (I mentioned some other time that there is no RE for the "conversion treatment" bans, but am well aware of the employment RE. That's a wholly different thing.)

As it does not mention poor enforcement (so this claim is unsourced), nor religious exemptions in the Commonwealth anti-discrimination acts (which exist, but are out-of-scope here, and not sourced), it cannot be used to cite the statements "not well enforced". I have added more about the RE in employment in the body of the article under the Discrimination protections section. Lmharding reverted this, but I have reinstated since. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References