In May of this year, Binary advocate, Kirralie Smith, was served with two applications for APVOs (apprehension personal violence orders) and two vilification complaints. Her alleged crime? She identified two male soccer players in the women’s league in NSW. Former Australian Christian Lobby managing director, Lyle Shelton, has also recently come out of a 3-year long court battle, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, for being concerned about Drag Queen story time for children. And Moira Deeming has been expelled from the Liberal Party, for attending an ‘anti-trans’ rally.
Several conservative activists are now wondering who may be next.
Not only are well-known pro-family advocates concerned, but everyday Australians are being taken to court in droves, which is evident through the list of cases managed by Human Rights Law Alliance.
The issue of gender is frankly, in my opinion, not the sort of thing a person should be visiting courts for. The ‘contemporary’ 21st Century must have developed an extraordinarily virulent case of myopia, if it is sending hard-working mothers to court for stating basic biological realities which if not stated, cause immense damage to women in sports, and jeopardise children’s physical health and long-term family prospects.
As legislation and policies regarding ‘gender-affirming’ LGBT identities skyrocket in Australia, conservatives face historical persecution by counter-activists, all for pointing out scientific truths such as the once uncontroversial statement that there are only two genders.
According to historical science, males have XY chromosomes while females have XX chromosomes. The science is settled in mainstream science journals: ‘The biological differences between the sexes have long been recognised at the biochemical and cellular levels.’ Furthermore, hormonal supplements are not enough to render a male into a female and vice versa, as genes on the chromosomes of males are only expressed in males, and some genes on the x chromosome is expressed in higher levels in females than in males. To make a man into a woman would therefore require an entire DNA and chromosomal restructuring in the human, which is not possible with current medicine, and probably never will be.
Stating truths about biology and pointing out the fact that the LGBT agenda is visibly beginning to unjustly impact several industries is therefore perfectly valid, and not only is it valid and relevant, but it is Constitutionally protected speech. Section 7 and Section 24 of the Australian Constitution carries implied rights to free speech as free speech undergirds any functioning democracy. Australia is Constitutionally set up to be a representative democracy through the above provisions. Denying people the ability to exercise basic freedoms is therefore tyrannical and anti-commonsense, particularly in times warranting communication because the issues are beginning to impinge upon important industries that affect women and girls, who have been fighting for a voice, for centuries beforehand.
The country will do nothing but regress in the name of ‘inclusivity’ if it stunts innocent mothers from using their God-given eyes at sporting functions. Not only is the trans issue raising questions for spectators, but female athletes themselves, are outraged.
Imagine training for decades to compete in the Olympics, only to be told you were outperformed by someone of the opposite gender, who is taking hormone supplements to supposedly justify the false idea that they are a female despite the scientific research suggesting hormones are not the only thing which biologically distinguishes men from women.
Frankly, the madness needs to stop. And many are beginning to ask for justice. Why should they be the one on the defendant’s end, of a lawsuit? This is justice they deserve, and they are being denied justice and instead, finding themselves on the receiving end of it. The perversion of justice is evident in Smith’s case, but also several others. Moira Deeming was kicked out of the Liberal Party, for attending a rally promoting women’s rights in the face of the trans agenda. In fact both men and women in the political arena who are bold enough to speak commonsense about biology, faces similar injustice and a barrage of falsified stories in the media, claiming they are homophobic or neo-Nazis. The irony is baffling, as activists advocating for trans rights in women’s leagues often make their arguments on the basis of ‘equality’ and ‘inclusion’. Many are now facing lawsuits that may impact upon overall wellbeing, financial circumstances, and public reputation – the bigotry is stifling.
The law should be protecting these citizens, not sending them to court. Section 10A(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) indicates there is an indivisibility and universality of human rights and every person is free and equal in dignity and rights. Also section 116 of the Constitution, stops the government from legislating against the free exercise of religion. And religion is often the reason many conservatives are outspoken against radical gender theory insanity, which defies Creation (biological) logic.
There are a good deal of Christians in Australia, and even Islamic populations, that do not believe that men can turn into women with mere hormone supplementation or a phalloplasty. So why should activists exercising basic free-speech rights be taken to court over these matters? What are the real grounds? According to the NSW police, ‘any person who is or has been the victim of physical assault, threats of physical harm, stalking, intimidation or harassment and has a reasonable fear to believe that this behaviour will continue’ is entitled to apply for an APVO. Have pro-life activists assaulted people? Intimidated them? Harassed them through stating a biological reality?
According to some former members of the justice system, political communication is rife with calumny, insult, emotion, and invective. That is the nature of political communication, so why should citizens be taken to court over political speech when real issues that cause tangible (not predictive) harm, is the courts’ priority?
When will the madness stop? Under a Labor government, it appears the discord will only increase until the bigotry is put to an end through continued free speech from like-minded citizens, activists, or conservatives.
No wonder Labor is set to pass the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which will do nothing other than stunt communication over issues such as sexual orientation and gender, causing so-called ‘harm’. What is actually harmful is the obstruction of free speech, taking innocent mothers to court over issues concerning democratic freedoms, and the physical maiming of children in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
With Sound of Freedom set to hit cinemas come August 24 due to popular demand, it is evident that Australia’s eyes are set on more pressing issues involving our children that tying up courtrooms with perceived offense.
