Closing the Door on the Light: Abolishing Protections in Anti-Discrimination Laws

First I want to address the issue of the protection of religious bodies. Once legislators started to add to discrimination law protected attributes such as for sexual activity, which we have in Victoria and one other jurisdiction, sexual orientation, and gender identity, we were no longer dealing with attributes like age, sex, or race, where there would be a 99.9 per cent consensus that it was wrong to treat anyone differentially on the basis of those attributes in most circumstances.

Once we moved into law for sexual activity, sexual orientation and gender identity, we entered into an area of controversy because “lawful sexual activity” would include sex outside marriage and adultery. Some people think adultery is fine, but other people do not.

So, when these attributes were introduced into legislation, the pressure came on to think about the groups – mainly but not exclusively religious groups – that will not be happy with a law that says they cannot differentiate or treat people differently on the basis of lawful sexual activity, gender identity or sexual orientation.

Now, instead of taking a nuanced view of this, the architects of anti-discrimination law back in the 1980s just said, let’s describe what it is to discriminate as broadly as possible. We’ll put in a really broad definition of discrimination. So, any adverse conduct in employment in relation to a person or any adverse conduct in relation to a student limiting any benefit that a student might get; really broad.

And then they thought, oh, there is going to be a problem at religious schools, because religious schools might not treat everyone the same, if a person’s sexual conduct is contrary to the religion. So, we’d better have an exemption – I prefer to call it a “balancing provision” – for religious bodies and educational institutions.

The classic form of exemption is like the one in the Northern Territory Anti-discrimination Act, which permits religious educational institutions to discriminate in relation to who they employ as staff in schools. If the discrimination is on the grounds of religious belief or activity, or sexuality, and is in good faith to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of the people of the religion to which the school adheres, it has to be in accordance with the doctrines or tenets or beliefs of that religion.

So, if it is the case of a teacher who engages in serial affairs or serial adultery, for instance, you do not have to employ that person, even though that would be unlawful under an anti-discrimination act that prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual activity. When it came to sexual orientation, a similarly broad definition of discrimination was applied, with pretty broad exemptions.

Looking again at the Northern Territory. Late last year, the NT removed that exemption totally. So, now religious schools in the NT do not have the benefit of that exemption in the case of employment and they have to prove a genuine occupational requirement. That is, they have to prove that the staffing position in question, whatever it is, genuinely requires that the person the school is looking to hire personally holds the same religious belief and adheres to the same moral standards as the school.

Now, under this amended legislation, the school has to show why in practice it is applying filters about sexuality, sexual conduct and religion to staff. These rules about not discriminating also apply in relation to students and board members and so on.

In Victoria, last year, a new law came in, through the Victorian Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act, that limits the freedom of religious schools to discriminate in employment decisions and regarding students. So, for example, in terms of employment, the Victorian law says religious schools, colleges and universities have to prove the following things:

That it is inherent to the staffing position that the person conform to the doctrines, principles or beliefs of the religion of the religious educational institution.

Before the religious educational institution can take any adverse action on this basis, it has to prove that the person cannot satisfy the inherent requirement because of the person’s religious belief or activity (Note that it is about the person’s belief, not about the person’s sexual conduct, whether the person has a lawful occupation as a sex worker. That is a lawful occupation in Victoria, and the ACT now. You cannot look at those things. You can only look at whether their religious belief or religious activity does not conform to that of the religious educational institution.)

You also have to be able to prove that whatever action the school or college or university took in respect to the staff member or the applicant for a job was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

It is causing religious educational institutions considerable heartburn to work out how to deal with this, in terms of their staff, their hiring process, their ongoing performance review and performance management of staff; and also, in respect to students.

Which brings us to the federal Sex Discrimination Act and the federal Fair Work Act. These have some exemptions for religious bodies when they engage in discrimination or differential treatment for religious reasons.

The federal Sex Discrimination Act currently says that a religious educational institution can discriminate in employment in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents to the religion or creed.

The Federal Government referred the matter to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), asking for recommendations on how to do two things:

How to remove those freedoms of religious schools to discriminate in employment decisions and regarding student conduct.

And how to allow religious schools to maintain a community of faith by selecting staff who have the same religion as the school.

The ALRC produced its consultation paper in early February. It is amazingly unbalanced, thin on international law, and its analysis is not a good starting point to come up with any sort of balanced solution to the dilemma.

Let me give you a quick flavour of what the ALRC is recommending. It has some pretty bizarre proposals. It proposes that the rights of religious schools to preference people of faith in the selection of staff should be limited only to teaching roles; not the nurse, not the administration staff, not the maintenance person. And only those teaching roles where the observance or practice of the religion is a genuine requirement of the role having regard to the nature and ethos of the institution. For example, the religious studies teacher or a chaplain.

Another proposal that the ALRC has come out with is to say that religious schools must employ teachers who may not share or support the religious beliefs of the school. That employment, though, can be terminated if the teacher actively undermines the religious ethos of the school.

Yet even religious education teachers cannot be required to teach beliefs concerning sexual orientation, gender, identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, in accordance with the religion of the school, unless such teachers are given the freedom to discuss with students alternative views about other lifestyles, other relationships, other sexualities.

It is worth noting that such strictures do not apply to a political body.

‘Conversion Therapy’

The second issue which we might discuss in more detail relates to suppression practices laws. These laws are being passed around the country. They started in Queensland and the ACT and Victoria, Tasmania will have a bill this year. It’s not clear where Western Australia is going; it said it was going to pull back a bit.

These laws are usually badged as “conversion therapy” laws, but they run much more broadly than that. For example, in Victoria, suppression practice is defined as any practice or conduct that includes a conversation directed towards a person, regardless of the person’s consent: that they have asked for the conversation or asked for the counselling is utterly irrelevant.

Conduct has to be in relation to the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and it has to be for the purpose of changing or suppressing that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

So, in any discussion – with a group of young people or old people doesn’t matter – where you say, this is our understanding of God’s will for your sexual identity or sexual orientation or your gender, you are at risk of being accused of inducing a person to change or to suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation.

The legislation is not fully explicit in saying that that practice can include religious practice, such as praying with someone, or exorcism or referring someone on to a counsellor or a psychiatrist or psychologist.

The legislation is so broad that it causes concerns about what can be said in sermons, in Bible studies, in discussions; when working with youth, youth pastors; and what teachers or a student welfare officer in a school can say.

We have already seen an example of the consequences in Tasmania. Under Section 17 of the state’s Anti-discrimination Act, a person must not engage in conduct that offends humiliates or intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, etc.

A complaint was made under this provision against Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous when he approved the distribution of a publication produced by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Don’t Mess with Marriage. The complaint was withdrawn subsequently.

Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia currently have recommendations to government to introduce laws like this, which are called, in shorthand, harms-based speech laws.

Interactivity of Laws

How might these three types of laws interact? Let’s say you are at a school and you are saying to someone, that this type of expression of sexuality, sexual relations, sexual activity is not in accordance with the beliefs or ethos of the school.

Someone might come by and say, well, you are inducing me to change or suppress my sexual orientation or gender identity. You can say, no, there was no inducing of anyone to suppress or change.

Then might come the accusation, you are discriminating against me on the basis of my lawful sexual activity, sex orientation or gender identity. Then the exemptions or balancing provisions under anti-discrimination law would come into play in your defence.

A third possible scenario is that someone might say, “I just heard in chapel or in religious studies class about the teachings of the religion on sexual orientation or on what is appropriate sexual practice or on gender identity, and that a reasonable person would have thought that that would offend or humiliate or insult me because of my sexual practices or sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Now, none of this is to say that anybody should be insensitive towards young people in particular or anybody in this regard. It is to say that the law is intruding in at least these three ways very substantially into the freedom that religious schools and colleges and religious bodies have to express, both in word and in conduct, appropriate conduct rules for members, for students, for staff, and to express the religious teachings of the organisation as they relate to sexual activity, sexual orientation and gender identity.


Originally published at News Weekly. Photo by Sora Shimazaki.

Thank the Source

The Dark Side of the Rainbow (Part 1)

How I accidentally fell into a fight to stop the sexualisation of my kids.

On 25th November 2022, our morning routine had gone well. It was time to take the kids to school and I was on a bit of a run with hitting my daily step goal, so I thought I’d walk my daughter to her primary school.

This led me to walk past the school office (not my normal path when driving to school) and to my surprise see a sign on the office door from the organisation Minus18 that read, “All Sexualities, Genders, Identities and Cultures Welcome Here.”

rainbow squad

How strange, I thought. For a start, kids don’t have sexualities, and there are only two genders at the school and in real life (boys and girls), and the school seemed like a welcoming place, so why did we need an inappropriate sign?

My daughter is quite a good reader and she could easily read this and ask me about it. I don’t want her to think about this, she’s six. She should be learning the fundamentals at school and having fun with her friends.

Speaking Up

What to do with this sign? Let it go, it’s just a sign? Or raise my concerns because if they’ve put up a sign like this, what else is going on that I’m not aware of?

After a week or so, I finally plucked up the courage to meet with the Principal. After an email with the school administration staff, we arranged for her to meet me on 6th December.

On the 6th, I headed into the school, extremely nervous. Hoping for a good outcome. Hoping to raise the issue of sexualising our kids and to get a fair hearing. But before I was even able to meet with the Principal as I arrived for our meeting, it became apparent that though I thought I’d come to speak about one poster, I was dealing with something much more significant.

When I walked into the office, I was met with multiple signs from the LGBTI+ movement. There was a giant rainbow flag hanging on the wall and multiple posters encouraging me to watch GAYBY BABY, telling me to be an ally, amongst other things. Now I’ve got no problem with people promoting their vision of the good life, but the sexualised nature of this seemed out of place in the office of a primary school.

So I was quite put off by what I saw in the office, but I tried not to let it worry me. Yes, we were no longer going to be talking about just one poster, but still, I was hoping we’d have a good meeting together.

Eventually, the Principal came out to meet me and we went to her office. This was probably the worst moment of my visit. As we walked in, I realised I wasn’t going to be having a chat with someone open to hearing me, but with what appeared to be a rainbow warrior.


The Principal’s office was quite stunning really. Her desk was draped in a rainbow flag. Her noticeboard was covered in LGBTI+ pamphlets and posters, and in the middle of them all was the Tasmanian State Premier, proudly telling me to become an ally.

Not only was the Principal drinking the Kool-Aid of sexualising our kids, but it seemed her office was designed to show me she did so with the backing of the government, all the way up to the Premier.

At this point, I should probably point out that if this was a secular club full of adults making up their own minds about how to live their lives, then in 21st-century Australia I’d expect a lot of rainbow information and LGBTI+ information. I’d also expect that as a Christian with traditional views to be in the minority.

But this is not an adult social club or secular workplace, it’s a school, and a primary school at that. And values and morals are the job of parents to impart to their children. Not only that, but there is something significantly different between homosexual identities and the gender fluidity/trans ideology flooding in under the rainbow flag. The two need to be separated.

But all that aside, as I sat there in the Principal’s office, to say I was put off by the sheer quantity of what I had seen in both offices is an understatement, and I don’t think our meeting went that well. I wasn’t as prepared as I should’ve been and she outgunned me. She didn’t agree that the poster was inappropriate, nor did she think it sexualised our kids.


I did however leave with one small win. The poster I argued was from an organisation that primary school kids had no business being made aware of (Minus18 — more on them another day) and in seeking to be inclusive, the sign actually excluded people of faith/religion (she tried to argue “cultures” included faith, but I explained quite clearly this is not the case).

I left the meeting overwhelmed, but with a verbal agreement from the Principal that she would take the sign down and put up a new sign that read “All Sexualities, Genders, Identities, Cultures, and FAITHS Welcome Here.” This would be more inclusive — and remove the Minus18 references from the school. Not ideal, but a small win I was happy to live with.

Two weeks passed. And the sign remained, though the Minus18 logo was taped over (and it was taped over on only one of the three copies of that sign I saw in the school). Where was the new sign?

Having had more time to reflect and having seen the Principal make no moves to do what she had said she would do, I sent her an email on 20th December saying I understood it was the end of the year and things were busy, so I’d made a better sign that was more inclusive. The sign was designed in the school colours and read, “Everyone Welcome Here.” I suggested she put this sign up as a good compromise that achieved maximum inclusion. How would she respond?


Her answer:

Thanks for your email. After our conversation, I spoke with staff and they were of the opinion that the word ‘identities’ encompasses ‘faith’.

Thank you for the poster you have developed, we’ll be happy to place those around the school too.

If I don’t see you again have a happy and safe holiday period and I look forward to seeing you again next year.


Rather shockingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, she had completely dismissed me and failed to inform me of her intention to do nothing. One assumes that given our meeting was on 6 December that the conversation she referenced in her email to me on the 20th didn’t happen on the 19th and was most likely to have happened sometime in the week of the 12th-16th. We had a couple of back-and-forths where she continued to completely dismiss my concerns.

Later that day, I sent a long email to her outlining my concerns once again and my displeasure at her actions to marginalise me as a person of faith and sexualise our kids. I also noted that despite these disagreements, my desire was to work with her to see our school be a place where learners (students) thrive. I received no response, and have not to this day.

So what happened next? School holidays started the next day, and so we’ll pick the story up in Term 1 2023 (mid-March). I’d love to connect with you if you’ve had to face a battle like this in your school, especially if you’re in Tasmania, but anywhere really. Iron sharpens iron and the only way we can protect our kids is if we work together to defeat the sexualisation of children in secular education.  Subscribe to find out what happens next in my unfolding story.


Originally published at Chris’ Substack. Photo by Yan Krukau.

Thank the Source

Moira Deeming: Former ‘Labor Party Princess’

Just when you think all hope is lost for the Victorian Liberal Party to ever regain its conservative political roots, along comes a candidate like Moira Deeming. Deeming is the type of grassroots politician the luvvies love to hate; young, articulate, passionate, and an ex-progressive.

Which is precisely the reason they’ve given her the moniker ‘Labor Party Princess’. Quoting the great Robert Menzies in her maiden speech to parliament, Deeming captured something of your widespread appeal:

‘The real life of this nation is to be found in the home of the people who are nameless and unadvertised. And who, whatever their individual religion or dogma, see in their children their greatest contributions.’

In her own words, Deeming says, ‘She was born and bred on the political left coming from a long line of union leaders, card-carrying Labor Party members, and Labor MPs.’ Indeed, her great-grandfather was John Joseph Holland, a western suburbs Labor MP for over thirty-five years as well as a councillor for the city of Melbourne. All of which is to say, Deeming comes from ‘good Catholic Labor stock’.

Seeking Liberty

What would motivate her then to change to the Liberal side of politics? According to Deeming:

‘There is a long tradition in Australian politics of those raised on the gospel of unity who come to learn firsthand the value of liberty and who then switch to the liberal side of politics. Sadly, they’re often referred to as “Labor rats” but in reality, they were just ordinary people who foresaw the problems which are plaguing all political parties that refuse to tolerate independent thinking and the tragic consequences of idolising economies which are controlled by the State.’

After quoting the famous examples of three former Labor politicians who switched sides throughout their careers — such as former Prime Ministers Joseph Cook and Joseph Lyons as well as Warren Mundine — a former president of the Labor Party to chairman of CPAC — Deeming commented:

‘I grew up idolising the Left, unions, and the Labor Party. But when taken to an extreme, these ideals have a “dark side”. As a teenager, I witnessed first-hand the corruption and the coordinated bullying of anyone who doesn’t think and act in “unity” with the Left.’

Pernicious Pedagogy

For Deeming, her political paradigm shifted due to issues she observed firsthand as a teacher in state schools. Deeming said:

‘Lessons on tolerance were being replaced with lessons on inclusion. It wasn’t enough to just accept each other’s differences with respect. Now students were required to affirm and celebrate beliefs which they just did not share. Perfectly reasonable religious and moral differences were being framed as discriminatory, intolerant, and a new vocabulary was introduced categorising people as “allies” or “enemies”.

‘Instead of being inspired by history’s heroes, students were being chastised and even told to stand up in class and apologise for historical crimes they had neither committed nor condoned.

‘They were told that the physical world is on the brink of doom. But rather than assigning research projects to find practical solutions, they were being assigned activism as work. Including, social media awareness campaigns, ideological fundraisers, and even attendance at protests during school hours.

‘Instead of being taught the life-changing value of grit and character, my most vulnerable and disadvantaged students were being weighed down and discouraged with spectres of insurmountable social forces all arrayed against them; capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy.’

These are serious issues. And every Australian citizen should be alarmed at what is occurring in Victorian schools, because that particular state seems hell-bent on leading the way socially for the rest of the country.

Sex and Lies

According to Deeming though, the proverbial ‘final straw’ in her deciding to challenge the government was as follows:

‘I discovered that school policies and curriculums had been radically altered to remove almost every child safeguarding standard that we had.

‘Primary school children were being subjected to erotic sexual content.

‘Female students no longer had the right to single-sex sports teams, toilets or change rooms.

‘And teachers — like me — were being forced to secretly lie to parents about their children who were secretly living one gender at school and another gender at home.

‘I realised then that my teaching career was over because I simply would not ever do the things I was being asked to do.

‘I would never ask the class which sexual experiences they’d had and which they were willing to do. I would never tell girls to bind their breasts. I would never accuse gay students of being transphobic. I would never tell my female students they had to tolerate a male teacher supervising their change room. And I was never evergoing to lie to parents about what was going on with their own children at school.

‘But I also knew that if I spoke out that I was going to be vilified and that I would never work in a public school again. And that is exactly what happened.’

Somewhat surprisingly, even the Sun Herald joined in accusing Deeming of promoting ‘extremist views’, while Daniel Andrews resorted to his usual tactic of dismissing Ms Deeming’s concerns as ‘shameful’. But listening to Deeming’s maiden speech, there is nothing extreme, let alone shameful, about it.

Deeming explicitly called on the Victorian government to amend the law in three ways. First, to protect sex-based rights to protect female-only sports, changerooms, and other activities while ‘maintaining the safety and dignity of transgender people’. Second, to make it illegal for children to be present in brothels. And third, to make it legal for parents and clinicians to seek treatment that alleviates gender dysmorphic feelings in children.

Deeming is a politician with the courage which we need right now. Sadly, though, the Liberal Party leadership have basically thrown her under the proverbial bus, distancing themselves from her convictions.

How tragic. When a former ‘Labor Party Princess’ cannot find a home in a party supposed to represent Liberal democratic values. No wonder the Liberal party lost the last election with little prospect of winning the next.


Originally published at The Spectator Australia. Photo by Ennie Horvath.

Thank the Source

NSW’s Incredible Folding Premier

Team Rainbow’s inexorable march through the institutions has been marked by clear strategic phases. There was the legalisation phase, cheered on by most small-l liberals and just about everyone else. Not many people thought locking up homosexuals was a good idea. Then we had the same-sex marriage debate. Then came the adoption-of-children push and the normalisation-of-lifestyle phase.

After that, the anti-discrimination-in-employment campaign, with Christian and other religious schools professing hetero-normativity (aka homophobia, as the activists paint it) in the cross-hairs. This was and remains part of the broader affirmation phase. We all have to approve and to love, not just tolerate.

Now we arrive at the mopping-up operations. Resistors must be chased from the public square. Those who do not affirm “the other” are the enemy. This now includes those who seek to stand up for the rights of those experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction and who desire professional help. In some cases, members of this cohort of undetermined size want to diminish same-sex attraction, others to reverse it.  Still others just wish to make sense of it. Some even want to learn how to be chaste, once considered by many to be a virtue.

And so we arrive at the issue of so-called “gay conversion therapy”.

No Changing Sexual Attraction

In this context, the Sydney Morning Herald, now firmly part of the PGGW (progressive, green, globalist, woke) Channel Nine-ABC industrial complex, has sensed the whiff of an opportunity to again hoist the NSW Premier on a Catholic petard. The issue of church versus state has entered the NSW state election campaign, focusing attention on the Perrottet government and so-called gay conversion therapy. This amounts to a follow-up blow after the recent Four Corners hit job on Pared schools.

Australian states and territories, including Victoria, Queensland and the ACT, have moved to ban practices aimed at changing or suppressing the sexuality or gender identity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual or gender and sexually diverse (LGBTQ) people. Legislation is also under preparation in Western Australia. However, the practice remains legal in NSW.

It is surprising that the Herald is “surprised”. After all, it has been leading the charge in politicising so-called conversion therapy. And it has worked in record time. The NSW Premier has caved, very quickly even for him, as he has on just about every cultural issue with which he has been confronted. His retreat was, sigh, entirely predictable.

Should Perrottet have surrendered on this issue? Is conversion therapy “atrocious”? Is it even conversion therapy?

“Counselling” is a more accurate and less loaded term than “therapy”. Banning it would be “a totalitarian act”, as the Queensland medico and bete noir of the rainbow coalition, David van Gend, has called what the Herald champions and the NSW Opposition proposes. He has told the story well, over and over.  Initially in response to the inevitable leader of the pack, Daniel Andrews. The compelling case van Gend has made is that this is an innocent and, in many cases, worthwhile practice. Very rarely is it “harmful”. As David says, ban therapy and you ban liberty.

There is something sick in the body politic when rigidly ideological politicians strive to prevent individuals from seeking their own well-being. This is a plea to keep political agendas out of the path of such individuals, to not ban their liberty by banning safe, effective, professional therapy all for the sake of enforcing this intolerant gay orthodoxy.

It seems that it is now intolerable for anyone to be homosexual (or even think they might be) and to not want to be — to want to bat for the other side, as we used to say. What about their rights? I am not seeing why those seeking help for a problem they identify in themself should be either branded “atrocious” or made illegal.

Van Gend talks about the ignorance and contempt for suffering displayed by those who seek to ban conversion therapy. What the rainbow activist position on this issue amounts to is either (a) an assertion that unwanted same-sex attraction does not exist, or (b) that it is utterly unimportant.  Either conclusion is quite damning for its position. In reality, unwanted same-sex attraction is an inconvenient truth always to be denied. Look, over there, at those homophobic religious bigots!

This is cruelty dressed up as a concern for the rights of homosexuals to be protected from what is seen by rainbow activists as oppression by the heterosexual state. Drawing on multiple peer-reviewed studies, van Gend calls the outcomes of counselling “overwhelmingly beneficial”, not ineffective and not harmful. Contrary to the conclusions of the anecdotal, statistically invalid, rent-a-victim approach of the inevitable and much-quoted La Trobe University hit job, the go-to text for activists.

Freedom vs Compulsion

Resources for the same-sex attracted are available internationally, and I assume that any forthcoming NSW legislation would make the provision of such resources illegal in the state.  The Catholic one is called Courage, which isn’t even about “conversion”, as the summary makes clear:

A Roman Catholic ministry that helps same-sex attracted men and women live chaste, holy and fulfilled lives, in accordance with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. They do not focus on recovering one’s heterosexual potential, but rather on learning to overcome the temptation to sin by giving over one’s life to Jesus Christ and by building healthy fellowship with others who share in similar struggles (emphasis added).  

Here is a question:  In the end, just who is converting whom here?  Who is doing the grooming?  The heterosexuals or the homosexuals?

On the one hand, we have a non-stop barrage of force-fed rainbow culture insinuating every sphere of life across the public square. We have all the funding grants, the community programs (like drag queens in libraries), the inculturation in schools and universities, the attempts by education departments to dress up grooming as “consent education”, the legislative strategies, the endless nudging by the legacy media and the rest.

No wonder there has been a substantial increase in people identifying as homosexual. (Just as there has been with people suddenly identifying in big numbers as Aboriginal). It is trendy and rewarding. One in six Gen Z Americans are homosexual, according to the Washington Post, part of the gay cheer squad. In the old days, it was thought to be about two per cent.

If the LGBT push has been part-recruitment drive, it has been extremely successful. Society has been groomed. The aforementioned La Trobe University has been at the forefront of the battle, a non-stop advocate for the march of gaydom that drove the notorious Safe Schools program, a front for the grooming of young people for the actively homosexual life.

On the other hand, we have religious and non-religious people who experience unwelcome and distressing same-sex attraction — and, as adolescents, many of us have been there — seeking help to overcome what they themselves see as an affliction. No victim status or sympathy for the gay refuseniks. We will make their suffering compulsory!


By the way, the targeting of Dominic Perrottet over the issue of conversion therapy and implied homophobia is a bit ironic, really.

The Perrottet Government is the gayest government since, well, Bob Carr’s. Think Gareth Ward — currently fighting sex abuse charges, alas — and the mercifully retired Don Harwin. Think Gladys rocking the Mardi Gras in her rainbow Liberals T-shirt. Think the Rainbow Coalitionists, aka the brokeback Nats. Most of all, think Sydney WorldPride month (or year, or decade, or whatever it is).  Here is the NSW Minister for the Arts and Tourism, one Ben Franklin:

“The NSW Liberal and Nationals Government is a proud delivery partner of Sydney WorldPride and we welcome everyone to the Pride Villages to take the rainbow-coloured party to the streets for WorldPride,” Mr Franklin said.

“Pride Villages will create a vibrant festival atmosphere, giving an expected 78,000 visitors to Sydney free and open spaces to gather, celebrate and enjoy the festival.

“Sydney WorldPride 2023 will showcase NSW to the world and we’re anticipating more than 500,000 people will attend this global event which will inject $112 million into the NSW economy.

“Sydney will be buzzing with excitement and activity which will turbocharge our 24-hour economy, create jobs and support local businesses across our State.” 

Buzzing with excitement at the rainbow invasion! Even the Roads Minister is excited:

“Incredible pictures of 50,000 people marching across our iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge will be beamed across the world on 5 March, thanks to extensive planning…

That would be the same bridge that now has an Aboriginal flag and no New South Wales ensign atop it.  Perhaps by March 5, there will be a rainbow flag aloft. And here is the Sydney WorldPride website:

The NSW Government is proud to support Sydney WorldPride in 2023.

The NSW public service strives to be a reflection of the community it serves. We actively promote employee networks and campaigns that encourage understanding of inclusion and diversity, and are committed to creating an inclusive and supportive workplace for all.

Across the sector, we lead or participate in a wide range of LGBTQIA+ initiatives, including the Diversity Inclusion Network, and Diversity and Inclusion Council, established by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Treasury; the Transgender, Gender Diverse and Intersex Working Group established by NSW Police; and membership of the national, not-for-profit Pride in Diversity employer support program.

There you go! A homophobic government if ever there was one.

Team Rainbow has little need for dishonest, sneering leftist media editorials to champion their progress.  They have already captured the commanding heights of the debate. They have won. Meantime, the rights of the unwilling same-sex attracted even to pray with a sympathetic pastor are shredded. This is the age in which we live. Gay nirvana. And no sexual liberation for those would actually like to be “converted” the other way.

We have been groomed, and conned. Scammed. Colonised by rainbow grifters. It seems clear who is winning the conversion wars. And no one in New South Wales minded to resist the rainbow tsunami can look to this conservative Catholic Premier for assistance, or so it seems.

All of which raises a broader question: what is the point of even being in politics if you believe in things but simply set them aside as if they do not matter? Paraphrasing St Thomas More’s words to Richard Rich (as attributed to him by Robert Bolt in A Man For All Seasons), one might inquire of Premier Perrottet, “Dominic, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for New South Wales!”


By Paul Collits
Originally published at Quadrant Online. Photo by Anete Lusina.

Thank the Source

Biden Admin Pushes Transgender Medical ‘Care’ While Quietly Bankrolling Research Showing Its Risks

As the Biden administration pushes the Department of Health and Human Services to make “gender-affirming health care” more widely available, HHS’s own National Institutes of Health is funding multiple studies premised upon how little research has been conducted on the long-term risks of taking cross-sex hormones and whether they improve mental health. The NIH research on transgender issues also emphasizes intersectionality and about half has been on HIV prevention. 

The NIH Reporter database, which lists active federally funded research projects, shows 74 with “transgender” in the title, totaling more than $26 million of taxpayers’ money annually. Several NIH-funded studies examine specific health risks of cross-sex hormone treatment — such as associated bone loss and possible increased risk of thrombosis, drug overdose, heart attack, and stroke.

Only a few studies evaluate the risk of infertility, even though “the impact of long-term cross-sex hormone therapy on reproductive health is largely unknown,” as one such project states and experts have warned. In contrast, seven studies examine stigma and disparities in health care for transgender people, in response to NIH’s Notice of Special Interest in understanding the role of alleged intersectional stigmas and how they harm health.

Many studies address higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections in transgender people, and whether hormone therapy might increase that risk. About half of all NIH-funded research on transgender health, including that which has been completed, relates to HIV prevention among the transgender population, totaling approximately $80 million since 1985.

Transgender males “have some of the highest concentrated HIV epidemics in the world, with a pooled global prevalence of 19% and a 49-fold higher odds ratio of acquiring HIV than non-transgender adults,” according to one project summary. Behavioral factors contribute, another project says, but the role of sex hormones needs further study, since they “are known to modulate the immune response, resulting in changes in host susceptibility to pathogens, vaccine efficacy and drug metabolism.”

Many Ongoing Projects Highlight Lack of Research

While suicide prevention is often cited as a major reason to give dysphoric children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, only one of the current studies is focused specifically on suicide risk, although several emphasize the lack of long-term studies of cross-sex hormones administered to children and their relation to mental health.

Medical professionals “say more specific research is needed to determine whether medically transitioning as a minor reduces suicidal thoughts and suicides compared with those who socially transition or wait before starting treatment,” according to Reuters.

One NIH-funded project summary acknowledges that the long-term effect of puberty suppression on mental health needs further study and will evaluate children already taking puberty blockers.

During puberty, hormones change the structure and organization of the brain. Puberty blockers “may also disrupt puberty-signaled neural maturation in ways that can undermine mental health gains over time and impact quality of life in other ways,” the Nationwide Children’s Hospital project summary says. “The overall impacts” of puberty blockers “have not been systematically studied,” the summary says.

One of the larger NIH-funded transgender studies, funded at $743,000 annually, is at Boston Children’s Hospital. It notes, “Little is known [emphasis added] about how pubertal blockade, the first step in the medical management of a young transgender adolescent, affects bone health and psychological well-being. … In an exploratory aim, we will also consider the effect of pubertal blockade on anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life.”

Another research project, “Psychological consequences of medical transition in transgender youth,” begun last year at Princeton University and anticipated to end in 2025, notes the lack of quality research in this area:

Five studies to date have longitudinally examined the relationship between one or both of these interventions [puberty suppression and hormone therapy] and mental health in transgender youth. However, these studies have had relatively small samples, none have been able to isolate the effects of endocrine interventions, none have included a cisgender [non-transgender] comparison group, and none have examined the mechanisms by which endocrine interventions might improve mental health.

A longitudinal study that began in 2015 and will run through at least 2026 acknowledges, “Transgender children and adolescents are a poorly understood and a distinctly understudied population in the United States. … Continuing our current research is imperative to expand the scant evidence-base currently guiding the clinical care of TGD [transgender and gender diverse] youth and thus, is of considerable public health significance.”

As the summary of one ongoing NIH-funded research project on sex hormones’ effects on the developing brain says, “There is little to no empirical data guiding clinical practices” of cross-sex hormone therapy in early pubertal adolescents, “highlighting the need for further research to address the critical knowledge gap.” The research, funded at $3 million so far to Stanford University, “will provide a much-needed foundation for understanding the longitudinal impact of treatments that are already being used [emphasis added] in clinical settings.”

The project will elucidate “how sex hormone therapy alters sex-specific risk for disease … and [its] impact on neural networks implicated in psychiatric disorders.” The research proposed “has never been conducted in early pubertal adolescents,” the summary reads.

NIH Acknowledges Limited Evidence, FDA Hasn’t Approved

The NIH, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, told Reuters that “the evidence is limited on whether these treatments pose short- or long-term health risks for transgender and other gender-diverse adolescents.” Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved puberty blockers and sex hormones for children’s transgender medical interventions. As Reuters reported:

No clinical trials have established their safety for such off-label use. The drugs’ long-term effects on fertility and sexual function remain unclear. And in 2016, the FDA ordered makers of puberty blockers to add a warning about psychiatric problems to the drugs’ label after the agency received several reports of suicidal thoughts in children who were taking them. More broadly, no large-scale studies have tracked people who received gender-related medical care as children to determine how many remained satisfied with their treatment as they aged and how many eventually regretted transitioning.

Countries such as Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have begun to limit children’s access to transgender health interventions. Early, foundational research from 2011 on transgender medical interventions has been criticized as failing to meet basic research standards.  

Before 2012, “there was no scientific literature on girls ages eleven to twenty-one ever having developed gender dysphoria at all,” according to Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage.” Studies show most children grow out of gender dysphoria, Shrier says.There are no good long-term studies indicating that either gender dysphoria or suicidality diminishes after medical transition,according to Shrier.

Yet Biden Administration Pushes Transgender ‘Care’

Meanwhile, despite all the possible health risks, President Joe Biden has issued executive orders charging “HHS to work with states to promote expanded access to gender-affirming care.” The administration has issued directives that federal health insurance benefits must “provide comprehensive gender-affirming care.” The administration also opposes “conversion therapy — efforts to suppress or change an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

Taxpayers are already paying for transgender procedures, as they are covered by some insurers and Medicaid in some states

HHS’s Office of Population Affairs, which is overseen by transgender Dr. Rachel Levine, states there’s no debate: “Research demonstrates that gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents.” Other proponents acknowledge a lack of research on these hormones’ effect on brain development, but say the pros outweigh the cons.

Growing Transgender Identification

The number of transgender adults in the U.S. is estimated at 1.4 million to 2 million, with an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 transgender children. The number of American children who started on puberty blockers or hormones totaled 17,683 from 2017 to 2021 and has been increasing, according to Reuters.

From 2019 to 2021, at least 56 patients ages 13 to 17 had genital surgeries, and from 2019 to 2021, at least 776 children that age had mastectomies, not including procedures that weren’t covered by insurance, according to Reuters.

The transgender surgery industry grosses more than $2 billion annually and expects to double that by 2030.

Debate Among Medication Providers

“Puberty delay medications are safe and effective,” according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a pro-transgender organization that sets standards for trans medical interventions. “Every person, including every TGD person, deserves an opportunity to be their true selves and has the right to access medically-necessary affirming care to enable this opportunity,” WPATH says.

When WPATH recently updated its guidance, authors “were acutely aware that any unknowns that the working group acknowledged — any uncertainties in the research — could be read as undermining the field’s credibility and feed the right-wing effort to outlaw gender-related care,” The New York Times reported. The newspaper is in the midst of an internal fight about its coverage of transgender issues, with some saying it has been too critical of transgender medical interventions.

A draft of the WPATH chapter for adolescents included minimum recommended ages for hormone treatments and breast removal or augmentation, but after criticism from providers and transgender activists, “it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people,” WPATH said.

The final guidelines also walked back a recommendation that preteens and teenagers should provide evidence of several years of persistently identifying as transgender, to differentiate from kids whose change in identification is recent, and changed it to a vaguer “sustained” gender incongruence. “In the end, the chapter sided with the trans advocates who didn’t want kids to have to wait through potentially painful years of physical development,” according to the Times.

The final guidelines acknowledged that because of the limited long-term research, treatment without a comprehensive diagnostic assessment “has no empirical support and therefore carries the risk that the decision to start gender-affirming medical interventions may not be in the long-term best interest of the young person at that time.”

Reuters found that gender facilities across the country are not conducting recommended months-long assessments before administering hormones to children. Parents of 28 of 39 minors who had sought transgender interventions told Reuters they “felt pressured or rushed to proceed with treatment.” Gender-care professionals also said some of their peers are “pushing too many families to pursue treatment for their children before they undergo the comprehensive assessments recommended in professional guidelines.”

Studying Causes of Gender Dysphoria

Some of the taxpayer-funded studies may bring clarity to the issue of gender dysphoria by examining its causes. One study will examine social media’s influence on children becoming transgender. A second will study “the life history calendar to examine young transgender women’s trajectories of violence, mental health, and protective processes.”

Another government-funded study will help determine how chromosomes, sexual organs, and hormones combine to create sex differences. Another will “uncover genetic underpinnings of female sexual orientation.”

This byline marks several different individuals, granted anonymity in cases where publishing an article on The Federalist would credibly threaten close personal relationships, their safety, or their jobs. We verify the identities of those who publish anonymously with The Federalist.


Sydney WorldPride 2023 (17 February – 5 March)

In 2023, Sydney Mardi Gras and Sydney WorldPride unite to present a truly global LGBTQIA+ pride festival — the very first in the Southern Hemisphere.

The theme for the festival, GATHER, DREAM, AMPLIFY, was developed in partnership with our extraordinary First Nations and LGBTQIA+ communities. It acknowledges the traditional custodians of Australia and represents our commitment to equality and inclusion.

Sydney WorldPride will be calling. A calling to come together and participate in a global movement. (Sydney WorldPride 2023)

For two weeks, Australia’s biggest city, the capital of New South Wales, gets to host the Sydney WorldPride 2023; apparently, it is the first time this event has been held in the southern hemisphere.

I think I might have half-expected this to have been hosted in left-wing, Labor Party-controlled Melbourne, Victoria. But in right-wing, Liberal/National Coalition-controlled Sydney, New South Wales, this has taken me by surprise.

Political Consequences

On Saturday, 25 March 2023, New South Wales goes to the polls to elect our representatives for the next term of the NSW Parliament. There will be many NSW Liberal/National supporters reading the Daily Declaration (if you are reading this post, thank you so much). Do you support the heart of Sydney being taken over daily by Sydney WorldPride 2023 events and the public transport system being modified to service these happenings?

It seems to me that our representatives are desperate to craft their policies on their perception of the will of the people. If, like me, you don’t approve then don’t let your silence be interpreted as condoning the event. Last week I wrote to my NSW lower house representative and to the Premier, letting them know that as a Bible-believing Christian, I do not support this festival. I also suggested that I might not be supporting the Liberal/Nationals on 25 March as a result.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the performers or the participants in these events. My concern is that because of the support from the Liberal/Nationals, I now feel let down and discriminated against for two weeks, as I am having to choose to keep away from the heart of Sydney, as these events are offensive to my values.

I believe that if we all write letters to our representatives and to the Premier, perhaps our voice will be heard. But even if our letters fall on deaf ears, we can’t be held accountable for letting evil flourish because good people said nothing! God will hear for sure, and the future is in His hands.


Photo: lovleah/BigStock

Thank the Source

England Bans Violent ‘Transgender’ Male Inmates from Women’s Prisons

England Bans Violent ‘Transgender’ Male Inmates from Women’s Prisons

Violent male criminals who claim to be “transgender” women will be banned from female prisons from Monday, Britain’s Justice Secretary has claimed.

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab has announced that males incarcerated for committing violent crimes in England and Wales will not be allowed to be housed in women’s prisons, even if they claim to be “transgender”.

Although Raab claims otherwise, the changes to the English prison regime appear to be in response to the controversy in Scotland surrounding “Isla Bryson”, a biological male convicted of two rapes who was sent to a women’s prison after claiming to be transgender.

With the British government having already promised to ban biological males entering women’s prisons if they still have male genitalia or if they have committed a sexual offence, for the most part, Raab has now announced that the ban will extend to all violent transgender criminals.

Writing on Twitter, the Justice Secretary touted the change as being “common-sense”, arguing that it would ” improve safety for prisoners across England and Wales”.

“We are very clear that from next week we will introduce new rules which means that any trans offender with their male genitalia intact or who have been convicted of a sexual offence and, adding to that, if they have been convicted of a violent offence, they will not be allowed into the female prison estate,” he told broadcaster Sky News on Sunday.

Even under this ban, however, dispensations will reportedly be available for some transgender male prisoners who wish to be housed in women’s prisons, with ministers being able to sign off on allowing a male who identifies as a woman to be housed in a facility for biological females should they deem it fit to do so.

Raab was also reportedly keen to emphasise that the changes to the prison system were — despite the timing — supposedly not in response to the infamous Isla Bryson scandal.

Born Adam Graham, Bryson was convicted of raping two women last month while he identified as a man, with his defence even trying to claim that his transition was reason to see him acquitted of the charges.

Once convicted, the original plan was to hold Bryson in a segregated part of a women’s prison, with it even being suggested that he could be moved into the main part of the prison should he be judged as not being a threat to the biologically female prisoners.

Such a suggestion was eventually shot down though after the story gained traction in the British media, with many pundits and members of the public expressing concern that Bryson’s presence could endanger women.

Despite the political backlash though, and the subsequent tightening of prison rules, Raab was keen to emphasise that the Conservative (Tory) Party are actually very much pro-transgenderism.

According to the Justice Secretary, the Tories want to take a “liberal, sensitive, tolerant approach to the LGBT community as a whole and in particular the trans community” — though it is unclear whether this is a position shared by the party’s perennially ignored base of activists and voters.

Raab’s desperation to suck up to advocates of transgenderism is ultimately unsurprising, considering his party’s track record, with the infamous Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at Tavistock rising to prominence on his party’s watch.

The National Health Service (NHS) outfit is now supposedly being shuttered after a report deemed its medical approach to treating children with gender dysphoria to be putting them at risk — although a report in The Times earlier this month revealed that is in fact still operating and still referring children for trans hormone drugs, despite much sound and fury in the press about it being closed down last year.

Follow Peter Caddle on Twitter: @Peter_Caddle
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London


A ‘National Divorce’ Is An Understandable Desire But A Recipe For Disaster

A ‘National Divorce’ Is An Understandable Desire But A Recipe For Disaster

A national divorce is impractical, and the prospect of a civil war, which is what happened last time it was tried, is horrible. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman, is a terrible messenger for the idea. Thus, it is no surprise that her tweet about the need for a national divorce brought a cavalcade of criticism upon her, including from fellow Republicans.

Yet for all the problems with the proposal — to say nothing of the often-stupid responses — there are good reasons why the idea is alluring to some on the right. Acknowledging these points is not an endorsement of a national breakup, and ignoring them will not make them go away. 

The first of these truths is simple: The moral and cultural divisions in our nation are probably as deep as those preceding the Civil War. There is a multitude of polling and punditry on our polarization, but it can perhaps be best summed up by noting that we can’t even agree on what a woman is — the Biden administration, along with many blue states, is literally putting male criminals in women’s prisons on the theory that trans women are women, full stop. This level of disagreement, which is mirrored on many other issues, does not lend itself to easy coexistence or political comity.

Of course, this division applies to both sides, which brings us to the second point, which is that the culture war has a persistent aggressor on the left. This is not to say conservatives never counterattack. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the cultural left has successfully remade social and legal norms around the basics of life, such as sex, marriage, and childbearing. And they keep pushing the envelope; we went from “be nice as Bruce becomes Caitlyn” to “trans the preschoolers” almost instantly. 

Furthermore, because the left styles these campaigns as the moral equivalents of, and successors to, the civil rights movement, they believe themselves justified in using the expansive government power used to break Jim Crow against, say, Christians who do not want to participate in promoting and celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Additionally, the left favors bigger government, which is inimical to pluralism, especially when it lacks generous accommodations for dissenters and minorities. The more control the government has over everything from education to health care, the less space there will be for nonconformists. This, in turn, reveals a practical problem with the federalist solution to our nation’s divisions, which is that only one side is amenable to it. If the right shows more interest in national divorce, it is because they are constantly being attacked by the left.

This brings us to a third truth, which is that there is an asymmetry of power in the culture war. The dominance of cultural leftism within institutions and industries, from academia to the entertainment industry to Big Tech, allows leftists to achieve major cultural victories even when they lack political power.

As the left seizes control of cultural and economic hubs of power, the economic interests of much of red and blue America are diverging, leading to a merger of the class war and the culture war. Among the obvious examples of this dual polarization are the many attempts by Big Business (encouraged by the corporate media) to impose economic sanctions on conservative states that defy cultural leftism. The efforts by Big Tech to suppress conservative views and outlets (sometimes even coordinating these efforts with left-wing government officials) are another.

The attraction national divorce has for some on the right is explained as much by the left’s aggression paired with its cultural and economic power as it is by the extent of our divisions. The cultural left impinges much more on even very conservative parts of red states than the right does on the most liberal areas in blue states. For the left, these are righteous victories, and they feel no need to apologize for them, but they are a persistent source of resentment on the right.

Nonetheless, the first point may provide the hardest challenge for those who insist that national divorce is not just undesirable but impossible. Put simply; there are limits beyond which pluralism becomes unstable and unsustainable. There are differences that cannot be bridged, even with a smaller government and more federalism. These are divisions over which there is no political compromise that will avoid one side feeling oppressed by the other. 

Transgender ideology has proven particularly potent at creating such conflicts. For instance, is it illegal and harmful discrimination to keep males who declare themselves “trans women” out of female locker rooms and showers, or is letting them in a violation of the rights of women and girls? Likewise, with regard to children who claim to be transgender: Is it abuse to transition them, or abuse not to?

A multitude of such issues is being piled on top of older bitter disputes, such as whether abortion is a human right or an inhumane wrong. And it is impossible to formulate compromises, or live-and-let-live policies, for them all. One side wins, and the other loses. As these issues proliferate, living under the regime of the other side will seem increasingly intolerable.

This does not mean we are headed for national divorce. But it is all too easy to envision a lawless sort of federalism in which the uniform rule of law is replaced by competing jurisdictions engaged in de facto nullification along with a dose of anarcho-tyranny. Nullification is once again being preached from the floor of the Senate, and there are plenty of recent examples of officials refusing to enforce some laws and applying others only to their opponents. And that, combined with our deep divisions, could functionally break our nation, even if it is nominally united.

But conservatives should not quit the work of preserving and restoring our nation. The empire of wokeness is powerful but fragile. It does not have majority support, and it can be defeated and beaten back. There are reasons for hope, from so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion programs being the first to go when businesses need to cut costs to GOP governors and legislatures, led by the example of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, growing spines and beginning to govern their states in the interests of the voters, not just their campaign donors. These leaders have learned that the key to winning enduring victories is to dismantle the institutional power of cultural leftism and dry up its funding.

Culturally, the time may also be right for a conservative renewal because cultural leftism is ineffective and immiserating. From public safety to racial harmony, cultural leftism is not keeping its promises. Indeed, it can’t even deliver on its signature issue of sexual satisfaction — it turns out the conservative norm of the natural family is good at distributing sex and companionship across a population.

It is understandable that conservatives want to get away from those who are attacking our way of life, but our knowledge of better ways to live should give us hope that we can win.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)