Posts

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

,

The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.

The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?

Dr Cody: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?

Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.

Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?

Dr Cody: I’m not.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?

Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?

Dr Cody: I have.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?

Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.

Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.

Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.

Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:

Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …

Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?

Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?

Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?

CHAIR: Yes. Good question.

Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.

CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.

/3 Comments/by

One Nation Defending Free Speech Since 2019

,

It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.  

One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech.   In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.

Transcript

To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government. 

This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began: 

1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings. 

There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia. 

1.2 The committee report— 

as it was originally drafted— 

into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill. 

That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful. 

1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct. 

The first report did not do that fundamental thing. 

1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire. 

That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously. 

1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter. 

Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder: 

… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. 

Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued: 

1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’. 

1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance. 

That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.  

1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like. 

That’s what you tried to do. 

1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes. 

‘Consultation’—that’d be nice. 

1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted: 

By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well. 

People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it. 

1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong— 

not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth— 

and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true. 

Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly. 

1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative. 

1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’. 

I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds. 

/2 Comments/by

One Nation Defends Free Speech

,

In the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has been subject to five community notes on X (formerly known as Twitter). Five times, Prime Minister Albanese has been called out by the X community for spreading misinformation. This is made possible by Elon Musk’s Community Notes system, which allows the public to moderate each other and agree collectively on what is true and what is not. It’s clear to see why disgruntled former Twitter executive and our eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, detests X and Elon Musk so much. Using “safety” as a pretext to censor the truth is now being threatened.

One Nation stands firm in opposing the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, now known as the MAD Bill, and supports free speech for all Australians, provided it does not call for violence.

Transcript

In the last three weeks the Prime Minister has been subjected to five community notes on X, formerly Twitter. The X community has called out Prime Minister Albanese five times for spreading misinformation. We know this because Elon Musk’s system of community notes allows the public to moderate each other and agree among them what’s true and what’s not. I can see why disgruntled former Twitter executive and e-safety commissar Julie Inman Grant detests X and detests Elon Musk. As the infamous Hillary Clinton admitted last week in a CNN interview, social media platforms like X need to censor content because, if they don’t, ‘we lost total control’—her words. Maintaining total control is the purpose of the United Nations pact for the future, which is really a pact for their future, not ours. Hillary Clinton’s unusual honesty exposed the real motivation for introducing the m-a-d—mad—bill: misinformation and disinformation. 

Control means censoring the truth. There’s no better evidence of this than the treatment dealt to two of the world’s most respected medical professionals. I proudly welcome in the gallery one of the UK’s leading oncologists, Professor Angus Dalgleish, from St. George’s, University of London, and Dr Paul Marik, a leading American physician persecuted for challenging the pharmaceutical corporate narrative. Both these amazing medical professionals are on an Australian speaking tour with the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society, a union One Nation proudly and strongly supports. Its highly qualified and respected health professionals, like our guests in the gallery, have suffered the consequences of the war on truth that drives the Liberal-Labor uniparty’s misinformation and disinformation bill, appropriately abbreviated to m-a-d—mad. I urge everyone to come along and listen to the real COVID story, not the government’s lie, while we still can and to join us in our ongoing, four-year campaign to protect free speech. 

/1 Comment/by

Christian Minister Faces Legal Action Over No ‘Welcome to Country’

,

In a worrying development of the growing threat to religious freedom in Australia, Christian Minister Dave Pellowe is facing legal action from the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complaint stems from comments he made at a recent Church and State conference, where he recited Christian theology on land ownership. Specifically, Pellowe refused to perform a “welcome to country” on the basis that ownership of the land belongs to God, not to Aboriginal people.

Psalms 24:1 teaches us that “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,” and there are similar verses found in Genesis and Leviticus, therefore the theological basis for Pellowe’s statement is not in dispute.  He argues that God delegated stewardship of this beautiful country was entrusted to those who follow God in faith – his image leaders – bestowing the right of individuals to keep and use land and property in service of God.  This implies that no single group, whether Aboriginal or Christian, has sole ownership of the land.

This complaint is not about hurt feelings but raises a fundamental issue regarding the right to practice Christianity.

Transcript

In an alarming example of the growing threat to religious freedom in Australia, Dave Pellowe, a Christian minister, is facing legal action in the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complaint stems from comments he made at a recent Church And State conference, where he repeated Christian theology on ownership of land. Specifically, he refused to provide a welcome to country on the basis that Aboriginals do not own this country; God does. 

Psalms 24:1 teaches us that ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it’ and there are similar verses in Genesis and Leviticus, so the theology of the statement is not in dispute. God delegated stewardship of this beautiful country to those who follow God in faith, his image leaders, bestowing the right of individuals to keep and use their land and property in service of God. Neither Aboriginal nor Christian can claim sole ownership of this land. We both exercise stewardship, on behalf of God. 

The complainant purchased a ticket to attend a Christian conference, marketed as a Christian conference, and was apparently offended to hear a Christian message! Church And State conferences teach the gospel. One attends a Church And State conference to hear the Bible taught and to be actively involved in society. 

Isaiah 24:4-6 offers a warning against supplanting God’s word with another teaching easier on the ears and easier on any superficial consulting of conscience. The church is losing supporters because established religion does not offer leadership. Today it has fewer warriors and no longer has use for the armour of God. The answer to the erosion of support for Christianity is not a softer message; the answer is stronger messaging and deeds that defend the faith. It’s time to end the age of appeasement. 

To those listening at home, Church And State are holding a telethon tomorrow night to fund legal challenges to the war on Christianity. I urge Christians and those who care for religious freedom to tune in online tomorrow night. We have one flag. We are one community. We are One Nation. 

/9 Comments/by

Spectator Article: Far-Right or Just Right About Everything

,

The political world is full of baseless slurs uttered by historically and politically illiterate shock-jocks. The current favourite is ‘far-right’. Pretty much any crime against Woke will see you saddled with this slur. From querying Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ dream, to partaking in capitalism, to defending free speech… You’re ‘far-right’. You’re dangerous. Dangerous to left-wing politics, maybe.

When it comes to the definition of ‘far-right’, the pillars of Western Civilisation serve as scaffolding while common sense and merit pad-out the walls.

Read more here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/far-right-or-just-right-about-everything/

/5 Comments/by

Free Speech Defends Every Other Human Right

,

Thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. The Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are designed to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom.

Everyday Australians recognise that this bill threatens their freedom, privacy and our way of life. If this entire serfdom agenda was presented to the Australian people in an election and they were asked – “Is this the future you want?” What do you think their answer would be?

Transcript

Last weekend across every capital city, as well as in Cairns and Mackay in my home state of Queensland, thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. Everyday Australians recognise that this bill is an attack on their freedom, privacy and way of life. The Brisbane rally in King George Square, in the heart of the Greens electorate of Brisbane, drew more than a thousand everyday Australians. The crowd displayed a level of awareness of national and international issues that must be making those who mock One Nation nervous. The public are waking up to the plan that successive Liberal and Labor governments have had and are implementing to use Australia as a crash test dummy for the crony Communist seizure of the wealth and human rights of everyday Australians, the purpose of which is to transfer even more wealth into the hands of the world’s predatory billionaires by using the Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the misinformation and disinformation bill to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom. 

Free speech defends every other human right. The witnesses to the Digital ID Bill inquiry, including the Human Rights Commission, drew attention to the lack of privacy and human rights protections in the bill. The committee ignored the evidence before them and returned a glowing recommendation to pass the bill in a report likely authored in the bowels of Geneva or New York, with almost identical legislation appearing in other Western wealthy nations at the same time. Then the bill passed through the Senate, with the debate guillotined—not one word of debate to air Australia’s views on this hideous, far-reaching bill. One Nation has a petition to immediately repeal this evil bill. So far 70,000 Australians have signed it.  

The Albanese government now need to do something now that they have so far refused to do—listen to the public, to the people. Repeal the Digital ID Bill or take the whole serfdom agenda to an election and ask the Australian people: is this the future you want? 

/by

A One Nation Event: Free Speech Conference

Tickets selling fast – secure your seat at: https://www.trybooking.com/CJYAW

This is a much anticipated conference where everyday Australians will come together to hear the latest on the government’s plans to take away more of your rights, and how you can get involved in resisting.

I will be conducting Q&As with Alan Jones, and with other speakers. I hope you can join us!

Saturday, 26 August 2023

12 noon to 5 pm

Brisbane City Hall – Ithaca Room

64 Adelaide Street

Brisbane QLD 4000

/by

Event: Save the Date – Labor’s War on Freedom of Speech

Free Speech Conference

Reserve your seat here: https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech-bne

Labor’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a direct attack on freedom of speech.

With the government taking aim at free speech and threatening the very foundations of our democracy, it’s vital that we stand against this bill. We must fight to protect our fundamental right to express ourselves.

There is a major problem with this bill and it is far more than just a slippery slope for our civil liberties. It is highly subjective in its definition of what constitutes ‘misinformation’ – in fact, ‘misinformation’ will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. That’s why it is being called ‘Orwellian’ with references to ‘The Ministry of Truth’ which featured in the novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell.

The information censorship being sought by this bill could easily include legitimate criticisms of the government, questions about the science underpinning climate change ideology, questions about high immigration, questions about gender dysphoria, and the ‘no’ campaign against the voice to Parliament. When the ‘truth’ becomes a subjective tool for the government of the day, you have to ask, who will be fact-checking the fact-checkers?

Petition (scroll down to sign)

https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech

/26 Comments/by

Cancel Culture Places Australia at a Political Turning Point

As a nation, do we believe in robust political debate? Or are we leaning towards the more suppressive model coming out of Communist China?

An Australian speaking tour by Donald Trump Junior was ended before it began. The former US president’s son had his visa delayed and it was only in the last 24 hours before he was due to board his flight that it was granted. The tour has been rescheduled for later this year.

British broadcaster and former politician, Nigel Farage, who was expected to tour with Donald Trump Junior has been going through his own brush with cancel culture in the form of debanking. The former Member of European parliament says that Coutts Bank (NatWest) decided to close his accounts because it didn’t like his political views.

We should be celebrating political diversity with some of the biggest names in international politics. It’s a chance for friend and foe to compete in debate, a practice that dates back to the world’s first known democratic societies in Ancient Greece.

It seems extraordinary that an Australian minister would intervene to prevent the visit of the son of a former US president, if that’s what really happened.

It’s easy to see the misuse of this discretionary power when you look at the performance of previous governments who have vetoed the visas of speakers, sports stars and political individuals who are known to hold views contrary to whatever the prevailing dogma is at the time.

Canceling the son of a former president is an undiplomatic act that could easily come back to bite those responsible.

/1 Comment/by

Passing the Censorship Buck Back to Social Media

Government claims it did not censor information itself, but raised matters of inaccurate information that were then referred to social media platforms.

Cautiously keeping its own hands clean of censoring free speech, which in the case of COVID often turned out to be more accurate than the messaging from government departments, Minister Gallagher says the department only alerted social media platforms to what were considered inaccuracies at the time.

The posts in question are being claimed to have been censored by the platforms themselves. This is a foreshadowing of the upcoming Orwellian ACMA bill.

At what point does censorship start? At the communicated advice from government, or at the moment foreign corporations such as Twitter or Facebook hit delete? What do you think?

/5 Comments/by