Every Australian child deserves to be protected from inappropriate reading material in taxpayer funded, public libraries. You have every right to have a say about what books are appropriate for your children, grandchildren, and students.
Sign and share the petition below – closing date is 17 April – and help to make libraries safer places for our children.
A thorough audit of libraries for “Submittable Publications” is recommended by the petitioners. Any explicit material meeting the criteria should be sent for classification review. The petition calls for a proactive approach and consistency of classification to protect children from explicit content.
It has become a growing trend in public libraries, including their online catalogues, to display books that are quite frankly designed to groom children about sex. We have the right to say this is not acceptable!
The ‘woke brigade’ are calling it book-burning. It’s not about erasing knowledge — it’s about decency and protecting children’s innocence by letting them have their childhood.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/sshhhlibrary.jpg?fit=550%2C550&ssl=1550550Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-26 16:23:512024-03-26 16:26:16Explicit Children’s Books Do Not Belong in Public Libraries
I was unable to conclude my speech on the Green’s Motion regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which is why the video was cut short. You can read the rest of the speech below. I hope my speech sheds some light on the complexities surrounding this issue.
I spoke against Greens’ Senator Shoebridge endorsing the Australian Capital Territory’s increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age and then in 2025 to the age of 14. It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting that a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions.
Caring for and loving children must encompass instilling in them a senses of responsibility. Failing to hold children accountable for their actions and the consequences does them a disservice.
The Australian Capital Territory is not alone in taking action to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The Northern Territory and Tasmania took similar steps.
For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. In ‘Greens Land’, a child of 13 is deemed incapable of legal responsible for their actions, yet is expected to be mature enough to make significant life decisions regarding gender identity and sexual activity. This disparity underscores a problematic viewpoint which encourages children to engage in activities deemed “mature” by Greens’ standards, yet are shielded from the responsibility that accompanies their actions should they break the law.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak against Senator Shoebridge’s motion endorsing the ACT’s recent increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age to 12 and then, in 2025, to 14. Care for children starts with love, and part of love is responsibility. It is not being kind to children to not be responsible. The Australian Capital Territory is not the only jurisdiction taking this action. The Northern Territory recently increased the age of criminal responsibility to 12. Tasmania increased the minimum age for detention to 14. For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. They just don’t seem to understand that care involves responsibility. In a ‘Greens land’, a child of 13 cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Yet a child that age can choose their gender, change their gender and read instruction manuals in adult sexual practices years before they are legally old enough to engage in that activity. Indeed, in ‘Greens land’, a child of any age can do those things. A 10-year-old can. An eight-year-old can.
It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions. This issue comes down to a simple legal principle: do they know the distinction between right and wrong, and can apply that distinction to their own actions? As long as there is no factor other than age that impacts on their capacity, they are criminally liable. Those factors could include autism, fetal alcohol syndrome or drugs. There’s merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I’ll say that again: there is merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I agree that diversion programs should be the first option for any child coming to the attention of the police or the courts. I have issue with children being held accountable for the sins of the parents, and so many of the children that come to the attention of law enforcement at this age are there because their parents have failed. There must be a point, though, where the person is responsible for their own actions. A young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. I’ll say that again: a young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. This legislation allows the excuses. One Nation supports helping a child succeed. Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Centre (NSW/ACT), made the following comment on the legislation:
“In the extremely rare instances when a child does something seriously wrong, it’s because they’ve been let down and need our help. By failing to raise the age to 14, the Australian Government is failing Aboriginal children, who are over-represented at every stage of the system, from police to court to prison. The ACT imprisons Aboriginal children at 12 times the rate of non-Indigenous children.
The Classification Board is required to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, abuse, and pornographic material. This is outlined in the legislation written in 1995. Restricting publications such as graphic novels, in the best interests of children, is not book burning, it’s common decency.
The motion I have introduced to the senate is about classifying books like ‘Welcome to Sex’ in such a way that prevents young children from reading them.
Why? Because it is not legal to instruct children in how to have sex before they have come of age. Basic morality and community standards are reflective of a civilized society and we would do well not to forget that.
Once lost, a child’s innocence cannot be replaced.
The ‘woke’ agenda’s increasing desire to enlist young children in an adult’s world of sex and depravity is nothing short of grooming.
My motion refers the classification to a committee review to create a new category for sexually explicit material directed to adolescents, to ensure kids don’t get their hands on this material without parental supervision.
Transcript
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in March 2024:
The adequacy of the current classification system for publications to protect children from age-inappropriate material, including:
(a) the need, if any, for penalties on publishers who fail to meet their obligations under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to submit potentially offending material to the Classification Board for review; and
(b) any other related matters.
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I’m speaking this evening in support of my motion to refer the classification system to a Senate inquiry. I’ve circulated a briefing document to explain this motion, and I hope senators have had time to review the material relating to cartoons for adults, otherwise known as graphic novels, in digital and printed form. The Classification Board administers the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Not every publication, though, is checked, of course. This would not be feasible. Instead, a system of voluntary referral is in place for questionable publications. That’s where the problem is—the system of referral or non-referral.
A publication called The Boys has been available in Australia since the first issue in 1996. This is the same The Boys that Netflix turned into a hit streaming show. Children, having seen the sanitised Netflix version and then seeing the book version on the shelf of their local library, will, of course, pick the book up and borrow it, unaware of the depictions of extreme violence, rape, public sex and bestiality found in the publication. Even more troubling, all of these things are portrayed in a positive light. For 25 years, this material has been perfectly legal to sell, display and lend to minors of any age.
A week after the Classification Board appeared before Senate estimates to answer questions from me and Senator Antic, the board reviewed all six volumes of The Boys as a result of a referral from campaigner, family protector and child protector Bernard Gaynor. A citizen fulfilling his responsibility to the community, to the nation, got it referred to the board. Three volumes were restricted and three were allowed to remain on sale unrestricted, meaning available in libraries to children. One of the banned works, episode 5 in volume 1, was titled ‘Herogasm’ and chronicled the sexual exploits of our superheroes. Graphic depictions included orgies and bestiality. This behaviour was presented in a positive light, with smiles, high fives, raised fists and whoops all around.
Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. I’ll say that again. Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does not prescribe a penalty on a publisher who does not refer a work that may be subject to sanction. That’s an incentive to not submit a work. This is one of the terms of reference of this motion. Penalties may be appropriate for a publisher who failed to submit a work that was subsequently restricted.
One of the volumes that was not banned depicted the male lead character, Homelander, raping the lead female character, Starlight, complete with protestations, using language that should not be suitable for children. The board declined to restrict the volume because the nudity in the rape scene was not overly graphic. What about the rape? All senators and members of parliament are required to take a course on sensitivity to women. The Classification Board clearly needs to attend the same training. The second justification for not restricting the volume is even worse. It was, ‘The two characters both climaxed, suggesting the sex was not rape but consensual.’ The Classification Board is apparently bringing back, ‘But she came’—the old rape defence. Where are the women’s activists? Where are the Greens talking about women now? They’re nowhere to be seen.
Another graphic novel currently on sale and on display in libraries unrestricted by the Classification Board is Nagano, which depicts sexual behaviour featuring girls who are actually labelled in the illustration as being seven years old, just in case there was any doubt about who these comics are really aimed at.
Now we have the book Welcome to Sex. The authors are Yumi Stynes, Melissa Kang and Jenny Latham. It’s published by international publishing house Hardie Grant Children’s Publishing. Much has been said about this publication in recent weeks. For those who have not read it, let me explain a little about this book. The publication is officially aimed at ages 10 and up, with author Yumi Stynes publicly stating that she would have no problem with an eight-year-old reading the book. Certainly some of the information in this book will help adolescents come to terms with their changing bodies and their relationships around that process. If the authors had stopped there, we would have no problem. They didn’t stop there. The second half of this book is nothing short of an instruction manual on how to perform adult sex acts, commencing with advice to young girls to take their own virginity with a hairbrush and then moving onto hand jobs, sex and even anal sex, ending with advice on how to send naked selfies. This is all in a book published for ages 10 and up. How is it legal to advise kids to have sex before they are legally able and to send illegal child pornography and to advise children to ignore the counsel of their own parents? How is this legal? Ten-year-old children cannot have sex and should not be tutored on how to do so.
It may be that this material is being sold because the Classification Board only has the choice between ‘unrestricted’ and R18+, which is restricted to sale in plain wrappers to adults. In effect, the current classification system has no jump between Cat in the Hat and actual porn. All publications become either one or the other. Legislation written in 1995 simply didn’t envisage this trend of graphic novels that are sexually violent and exploitative material that one could describe as child-grooming material.
Children are far more valuable than this. I’m asking the committee to decide if there should be more steps in the classification options so material like this can be allowed for sale to adolescents old enough to actually engage in the sexual practices explained in this publication. After all, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does require the board to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, abuse and pornographic material. This publication is pornographic. Restricting a publication like this is not book burning, as some have suggested, some who are afraid of a debate. One Nation is not calling for the book to be banned. We are suggesting this book should be classified in a way that prevents young children from reading it. That is not book burning. That is basic decency reflecting community standards that say teaching 10-year-olds how to have anal sex is just plain wrong. A legally binding MA15+ classification would achieve that. I ask for the Senate’s support for my motion.
The Vote
After constituents told me children can access disgusting pornography on store shelves & libraries, I moved a motion to refer the book classification system to a senate inquiry so that Australians can have their say.
Our children deserve our protection.
We finally got the Liberal-Nationals to support an inquiry. Labor, Greens, Pocock and the Teals (LGPT) voted to stop an inquiry. The vote was: YES – 25 and NO – 30.
The LGPT brigade think it’s okay for children to access porn and that Australians shouldn’t be able to voice their concerns.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JUKBz8V6478/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-02 12:32:172023-08-04 14:20:46One Nation Will Always Protect the Innocence of Children
