A Christian legal rights group in Australia is under investigation by a regional anti-discrimination commissioner for quoting statements about gender policy made by the national Greens party, a group leader said.
Michelle Pearse, chief executive officer of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), outlined the formal investigation by Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in a July 1 email to supporters entitled, “We’re under investigation for quoting the Greens.”
“Free speech in Australia just hit a dangerous new low. We’re the proof,” Pearce declared, saying the Christian legal rights organization’s “crime” was allegedly “telling voters what politicians promised.”
Before Australian federal elections on May 3, ACL distributed flyers quoting verbatim the national Green Party’s policies about gender, including quotes such as, “ensure gender-affirming care is free and publicly accessible,” and, “make gender-affirming healthcare a permanent part of Medicare [Australia’s universal healthcare system].”
The ACL posted an online warning at the end of June: “If quoting policy and sharing widely-held medical concerns is now grounds for investigation, freedom of speech in this country is not just under pressure – it’s in peril.”
Pearce said the legal rights group sought to express concern about irreversible treatments for “confused youth” questioning their gender.
“For this, we’re accused of being ‘offensive, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing,’” she said.
Referring to Sweden, Finland and the U.K. halting gender-changing treatments after experts raised concerns, she said that in Australia, Queensland had “pressed pause” on such treatments.
“Our Family Court found the Royal Children’s Hospital was pushing ideology, not medicine,” Pearse asserted in the email, seemingly in reference to a judge criticizing the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne about its care for children questioning their gender. In April, the judge castigated the hospital for adopting a gender-affirming care model without proper regard to children being too young to make medical decisions with lifelong consequences.
“Meanwhile, Tasmania openly bankrolls a festival featuring inverted crosses and satanic theatre,” Pearse told ACL supporters. Inverted crosses have been placed around the city of Hobart in Tasmania by Dark Mofo, a pagan group.
Recognizing that supporters had helped the Christian legal rights group win many battles for religious freedom, Pearse noted that “this one is different.” She called the investigation by Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner a “punishment” in itself and cited various cases of authorities quashing freedom of expression, calling them a “pattern.”
“Jasmine Sussex stated, ‘Men can’t breastfeed.’ Result: expelled and facing tribunal,” Pearse wrote. “Dr. Jillian Spencer questioned youth gender treatments. Result: stood down for transphobia. Lyle Shelton questioned drag queen story time. Result: five years in court.”
Pearse rhetorically labelled the underlying message from officialdom as, “speak up, pay up,” adding that the process itself is the punishment, regardless of outcomes: “Years of stress. Hefty legal bills. When facts become ‘vilification,’ we’re no longer living in a free society.”
Reminding supporters that ACL has previously won legal battles defending chaplains, protecting faith-based schools and preserving parental rights, she stated that the precedent set by the investigation “threatens everyone who dares think differently.”
“Now [it’s] us, for quoting election policies,” she added, referring to the investigation. “You or your Christian friends could be next. This isn’t about Left or Right. It’s about whether Australians can question what’s happening in society without facing legal retaliation.”
In appealing for financial help against the investigation, Pearse wrote, “Scripture reminds us: ‘Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17). This is our moment. Because if quoting politicians becomes a crime, silence becomes law!”
Looking at the condition of freedom of speech in states across Australia, Pearse wrote that there was still hope.
“Not every state has fallen,” she declared. “Western Australia (WA) has no such laws. South Australia (SA) limits them to racial vilification. But Tasmania and Queensland have turned ‘offense’ into a weapon.”
Tasmania is holding a state general election for the House of Assembly on July 19, which Pearse saw as a test for freedom rights.
“Tasmania votes soon,” she wrote. “If we lose, politicians everywhere will know they can silence critics.”
Robin Szabo, business services coordinator for the Office of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, responded on behalf of Pia Saturno, acting commissioner, to Christian Daily International’s request for comment.
“Due to confidentiality obligations under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) (ADA), it is not the practice of my office to make comments about the complaint work of my office,” Saturno stated.
The commissioner’s office, however, provided some general information about the complaint process, outlined here verbatim:
· Under the ADA, people have a right to make complaints if they believe they have been discriminated against or subjected to other prohibited conduct because they have one or more characteristics (‘attributes’) protected by the ADA.
· The Commissioner must assess all complaints received. The Commissioner will accept a complaint for investigation if it shows a possible breach of the ADA. One of the Commissioner’s main roles is to investigate and try and resolve complaints by conciliation.
· The Commissioner does not decide or make findings that a person has been discriminated against or subjected to other prohibited conduct. If a complaint is not resolved by conciliation, the Commissioner may refer a complaint to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal conducts a hearing (inquiry) and makes findings about whether or not the alleged conduct occurred and if it breached the ADA.
· The ADA contains a number of defenses to complaints. In some cases, the Commissioner can dismiss a complaint if a defense clearly applies. In other cases, the Tribunal has to make this decision after hearing.
· Information about the complaint process and timelines can be found here and regarding discrimination, prohibited conduct and attributes under the ADA can be found here.
