Posts

Human Rights and Gender Dysphoria

,

I asked the Human Rights Commission how much they spend on legal intervention for people who lost their job due to vaccine mandates, then moved onto the topic of sex and gender.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) subscribes to the belief that sex can be changed after birth as recognised in law throughout Australia. The meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ will be argued at the Federal Court level with the assistance of the AHRC. I probed Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, about the matter she is involved with as a “friend of the court”. The HRC has intervened in a recent Federal Court case known as “Tickle and Giggle” and will be assisting in this case, which will argue that ‘sex’, as in gender, isn’t real. The biological realities of sex appear to matter less than how people express their sexuality or gender identity. Dr Cody will assist the Federal Court to understand changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that occurred in 2013, to ascertain the validity of the changes under the Constitution and the Civil and Political Rights Convention.

Make no mistake, the sex and gender insanity is a direct attack on families, originating from foreign bodies like the corrupt World Health Organisation. One Nation will fight it every step of the way.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Croucher and your team, for being here. I’d like to get some information from you about your interventions and then discuss a particular case that I understand the Human Rights Commission is involved in. First, to the information, how much has the Australian Human Rights Commission spent on legal representations in immigration matters? You’ll have to take that on notice, I’m sure.

Prof. Croucher : Yes, I will take it on notice. In terms of ‘immigration matters’, I’m not sure what you mean by—

Senator ROBERTS: Advocacy for immigrants.

Prof. Croucher : Our general human rights work could include issues pertaining to immigration, but that would be very hard to particularise, because it’s part of a general mandate. In terms of involvement in external litigation, we have a little bit of intervention work that I can speak to, but it would be very hard to speak about particulars of the kind that you’re asking for. I don’t know that we can really help there.

Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like some indication of how much money is spent by the Human Rights Commission on supporting immigration matters.

Prof. Croucher : I can certainly take the question on notice, but with respect to the answer that we might be able to give, it’ll be fairly general, I would think. But we’ll do our best, Senator.

CHAIR: You can only answer what you’ve been asked.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Prof. Croucher : I’ll honour your question by taking it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How much has it spent in total on legal matters?

Prof. Croucher : Again, if I can, I’ll take that on notice. I can give, as a specific example, the amount we spent on intervening in the recent High Court case, the NZYQ matter. I know that figure off the top of my head. But in terms of total engagement, over what period are you interested?

Senator ROBERTS: The last decade.

Prof. Croucher : The last decade. To the extent that we can, we will provide that information; otherwise, if I may suggest it, we might reflect a more contained period to give an example of an answer to that.

Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to get an indication of the priorities, that’s all—in terms of the money and where it goes. If 10 years is ridiculously impossible, then use a shorter period. I just want to get some indication.

Prof. Croucher : An indication, yes. It’s not very much. I can give you that indication.

Senator ROBERTS: How many cases has the Australian Human Rights Commission intervened in or appeared in for an Australian who lost a job due to a vaccine mandate, a COVID injection mandate?

Prof. Croucher : We don’t appear for people in that way. We may seek to intervene or our commissioners may seek to act as amicus within their mandates, but we don’t act for people in that way.

Senator ROBERTS: How many have you intervened in?

Prof. Croucher : With respect to that particular topic, I don’t know of any, but, again, I will confirm that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to a case. Can you explain the commission’s intervention in the Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle to argue that sex—as in gendered sex—isn’t real? I’m told you’ve intervened in that.

Prof. Croucher : It’s the exercise of an amicus function of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Perhaps Commissioner Cody might like to speak to you directly about that.

Dr Cody : The role that the commission is playing in that matter is as amicus curiae.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?

Dr Cody : It means friend of the court. Our role is to try to help the court understand some of the complex issues. Our role in intervening is to help understand the meaning of section 5B. It’s one of the first times that the Federal Court will be considering the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that were introduced in 2013. There’s also a constitutional challenge as to whether or not it is valid under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We’re intervening on those two issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many letters after LGB does the commission recognise?

Dr Cody : We use a range of terms to refer to the communities. Sometimes we would refer to LGBTQIA+ because of the ways in which people refer to themselves. We also use the terms that are referred to in international discussions, which are sexual orientation, gender identity expression and ‘SC’, which for the moment escapes me but is another term that is used at an international level.

Senator ROBERTS: In the Human Rights Commission submission for Tickle v Giggle, apparently the commission has argued that sex is not a biological concept, nor does it refer to male or female. Is that correct?

Dr Cody : In our submissions, as in the Sex Discrimination Act itself, the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ are not defined. We refer to the understanding of ‘woman’ which can be both the sex that is identified at birth but also through identification through birth certificates at all state and territory levels. A person can change their recognised sex through the birth certificate recognition.

Senator ROBERTS: So the Human Rights Commission believes that sex can be changed after birth.

Dr Cody : That is recognised in law around all of the states and territories in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Sex is not binary, limited to male or female—another intervention?

Dr Cody : That is an argument that will occur at the Federal Court—the meanings of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’.

Senator ROBERTS: To be considered female, it just needs to say ‘female’ on a birth certificate, which a male can do at any stage of life. That’s your view?

Dr Cody : No, that’s not the view of the commission. The submissions that we have made in the Federal Court and will argue when it comes to the full hearing of the case will be looking at how that is understood within the Sex Discrimination Act and the meaning that is ascribed. As I’ve referred to both, that includes, for a man or woman, the sex that you identified with at birth but also can be changed—or recognised—through the process of altering your birth certificate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting here. ‘At least as early as the 1990s, it has been accepted that sex is changeable.’ What happened before the 1990s?

Dr Cody : It was not recognised in law.

Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘female’ and ‘woman’ include men who claim to be women. You’ve validated that. Do you really believe these submissions are in line with the biological reality of sex and with most of Australians’ views? I take it you don’t, but that is the way the law sees it.

Dr Cody : My role as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is to apply the Sex Discrimination Act and to intervene to assist the Australian community to achieve gender equality and also to achieve the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. That is a part of our role acting as friend of the court in this case.

Senator ROBERTS: What changed in 1990?

Dr Cody : I think there was a growing understanding at an international level and also domestically of the range of ways in which people express their sexuality and also their gender identity.

Senator ROBERTS: So this is about expression, not science or body.

Dr Cody : I think it’s probably a combination. Bodies haven’t changed, no.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that sex operations, I’m told, offer only two options: male and female?

Dr Cody : I can’t help you with that question.

Senator ROBERTS: To me it seems like this is supporting an attack on family. I recognise that there can be same-sex couples having a perfectly good family, so I’m not criticising that, but this is breaking up the family. You said it came from overseas—internationally. Broader Australians don’t seem to see this as an issue. Why are we spending so much time on it?

Senator Chisholm: You’re the one spending time on it!

Senator ROBERTS: Correct—because so many people are now concerned, including Queenslanders.

Dr Cody : I think there are many people in the community for whom these are important issues, and it’s important that we can discuss them. Many in the LGBTQIA+ communities experience severe discrimination, so we need to ensure that everyone in our community can experience the full range of human rights.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/by

Vaccine Mandates: Human Rights Destroyed by Emergency Declarations

In light of Professor Brendan Murphy’s, the Secretary Department of Health & Aged Care, evidence during the June estimates that mandates are no longer justifiable, I asked the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, for their latest guidance on COVID vaccine mandates.

Commissioner Finlay’s response was that this advice has not changed throughout the COVID response in terms of general human rights principles. What this means is that although governments can restrict individual human rights in an emergency, those restrictions need to be proportionate, non-discriminatory and targeted to risk.

This goes to the heart of the problem. Decisions were made that put Australia onto an emergency footing in 2020. Yet this has dragged on beyond what is reasonable. The response has not been proportionate to the risk of the COVID infection, which the Chief Medical Officer in March of 2021 admitted was low to moderate.

Discrimination remains to this day against those who exercised their right to say no to injections, despite the coercion. We must have a system in place whereby civil liberties are rightfully returned. The Australian Human Rights Commission should be at the forefront of calling for this, yet they appear to be captured, with the exception of Commissioner Finlay, who has come out strongly in support of human rights principles.

Commissioner Finlay is looking forward to the COVID Inquiry that was recently announced, after the Senate approved my motion to establish an inquiry to recommend and report on the Terms of Reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission. She sees the need not only to look at the economic and scientific impacts and advice that were given throughout the COVID response, but the human cost too.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you want to see if you can get some questions done?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As the chair said, my questions are fairly short and straight to the point. What is the latest guidance from the commission on COVID vaccine mandates? Where was that published?

Ms Finlay: I would refer you to the answer we gave you in relation to this at the previous estimates. The advice remains the same in terms of the general human rights principles that we rely on in our approach to both
vaccine mandates and all other restrictions that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you here and express my appreciation and admiration for your stand on being so clear on the Voice and on misinformation and disinformation. I also want to thank everyone for being here tonight so I could do that. Are you aware of the evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Professor Brendan Murphy, at the previous estimates in regard to COVID mandates?

Ms Finlay: In a general sense.

Senator ROBERTS: On 1 June, Professor Brendan Murphy said – at this stage in the pandemic there is little justification for vaccine mandates. That is the most senior health bureaucrat in the country who said that. There doesn’t seem to be any updated guidance from the commission on vaccine mandates despite the fact they are still in effect at employers and are clearly a breach of human rights that’s not proportionate to any supposed benefit. Why haven’t you come out clearly on this issue?

Ms Finlay: I would answer that in two respects. The first is that the guidance in terms of the general human rights principles remains the same. We are not medical experts. I think we discussed that at the previous estimates. Our advice is based on those general human rights principles where in emergency situations governments can restrict human rights but those restrictions need to be proportionate, nondiscriminatory and targeted to risk. So the advice remains the same because of the general principles of international human rights law that we rely on in informing our views about these things and those don’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: So you as a commission essentially follow blindly? The Chief Medical Officer advised me in March 2021 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate, not severe. So it was not a crisis.

Ms Finlay: No, our advice doesn’t follow blindly. Again, I would refer back to the evidence we gave previously and note that, for example, the most recent TGA advice in relation to their vaccination safety report
repeated the same advice that we discussed at the previous estimates in terms of the benefits of the vaccination outweighing the risks. It’s on the basis of that that the general principles of human rights law then apply.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate that you probably haven’t got any latitude to investigate, but the TGA told me at Senate estimates in February, I think, that they did not test the injections. They relied on the FDA in
America, which did not test injections. It relied on Pfizer, which shut down the trial because of the horrendous results.

Ms Finlay: I can’t provide any information on that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t expecting that. I’m just—

Ms Finlay: but I would refer to the second aspect of the answer that I was meaning to get to, which is that we welcome the opportunity for these issues to be explored at the COVID-19 inquiry that’s been announced. Certainly we have made public comments in relation to that inquiry about the need to not only look at the economic and scientific impacts of advice that was given throughout the pandemic but at the human cost of the
pandemic as well.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s refreshing to hear. Thank you.

/6 Comments/by

Impartiality Under Question at Human Rights Commission

,

I raised some concerns — matters that I was asking about for the first time — with the Human Rights Commission on the topic of the Voice referendum. Commissioner Finlay of the Human Rights Commission made several statements criticising the Voice and raising potential human rights implications. You’ll see in this video that Professor Croucher is unwilling to revisit any line of questioning she has answered to other senators in previous estimates.

Despite Commissioner Finlay’s concerns being shared by the majority of Australians, who voted down the referendum, the Commission published a statement on 30th of March that rejected Commissioner Finlay’s human rights concerns. I’ve requested on notice all internal email correspondence in relation to drafting that statement and Commissioner Finlay’s remarks.

The Australian public expects true impartiality and independence of the Human Rights Commission. We haven’t seen this on COVID and now the Voice except for Commissioner Finlay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As the chair said, my questions are fairly short and straight to the point. What is the latest guidance from the commission on COVID vaccine mandates? Where was that published?

Ms Finlay: I would refer you to the answer we gave you in relation to this at the previous estimates. The advice remains the same in terms of the general human rights principles that we rely on in our approach to both vaccine mandates and all other restrictions that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you here and express my appreciation and admiration for your stand on being so clear on the Voice and on misinformation and disinformation. I also want to thank everyone for being here tonight so I could do that. Are you aware of the evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Professor Brendan Murphy, at the previous estimates in regard to COVID mandates?

Ms Finlay: In a general sense.

Senator ROBERTS: On 1 June, Professor Brendan Murphy said: At this stage in the pandemic there is little justification for vaccine mandates. That is the most senior health bureaucrat in the country who said that. There doesn’t seem to be any updated guidance from the commission on vaccine mandates despite the fact they are still in effect at employers and are clearly a breach of human rights that’s not proportionate to any supposed benefit. Why haven’t you come out clearly on this issue?

Ms Finlay: I would answer that in two respects. The first is that the guidance in terms of the general human rights principles remains the same. We are not medical experts. I think we discussed that at the previous estimates. Our advice is based on those general human rights principles where in emergency situations governments can restrict human rights but those restrictions need to be proportionate, nondiscriminatory and targeted to risk. So the advice remains the same because of the general principles of international human rights law that we rely on in informing our views about these things and those don’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: So you as a commission essentially follow blindly? The Chief Medical Officer advised me in March 2021 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate, not severe. So it was not a crisis.

Ms Finlay: No, our advice doesn’t follow blindly. Again, I would refer back to the evidence we gave previously and note that, for example, the most recent TGA advice in relation to their vaccination safety report repeated the same advice that we discussed at the previous estimates in terms of the benefits of the vaccination outweighing the risks. It’s on the basis of that that the general principles of human rights law then apply.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate that you probably haven’t got any latitude to investigate, but the TGA told me at Senate estimates in February, I think, that they did not test the injections. They relied on the FDA in America, which did not test injections. It relied on Pfizer, which shut down the trial because of the horrendous results.

Ms Finlay: I can’t provide any information on that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t expecting that. I’m just—

Ms Finlay: but I would refer to the second aspect of the answer that I was meaning to get to, which is that we welcome the opportunity for these issues to be explored at the COVID-19 inquiry that’s been announced. Certainly we have made public comments in relation to that inquiry about the need to not only look at the economic and scientific impacts of advice that was given throughout the pandemic but at the human cost of the pandemic as well.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s refreshing to hear. Thank you.

/by

NSW Handmaid’s Bills Will Hurt Women and Children

New South Wales State MP Alex Greenwich has introduced two horrific anti-human bills in the NSW parliament. These bills are so bad I had to raise my concerns in a Senate speech.

In 2023 women are becoming simultaneously invisible and exploited. Women’s rights are being removed by the Left under the cover of ‘inclusive’ gender diversity and a ‘progressive’ facade. This attack on femininity is taking the women’s movement backwards, which will come at a terrible cost to our society. When public figures are too cowardly to even define what is a woman, society is in trouble.

In a nutshell, Alex Greenwich proposes legalising sex self-id, making official documents reflect the individual’s self-image rather than biological reality. This undermines the safety of women and girls in female only spaces. He also seeks to fully deregulate prostitution, removing protections for all prostituted persons.

In a bid to make it easier for the gay community to become parents, Alex Greenwich’s proposed bill also seeks to remove bans on commercial surrogacy if it happens outside NSW. Although it’s an understandable goal for gay couples to parent a child, this would make it legal for NSW residents to use foreign baby farms.

Such a bill would encourage the exploitation of poor, vulnerable women. It reduces them to the status of a womb for rent and turns children into products for sale. We’re living through the beginnings of a modern day handmaid’s tale. Bills such as these would remove many of the protections in law women have worked so hard to achieve.

This attack on women’s rights is also an attack on society’s values and religious freedoms. The final thing this bill seeks to introduce is that religious belief will no longer be an acceptable employment criteria for religious schools. If someone from the LGBTIQA+ community wanted to infiltrate a religious school then woe betide that school for turning them down. It’s clear that those responsible for the moral decay of society see Christianity as the resistance and want it destroyed from within.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate’s attention to the New South Wales parliament, where independent MP Alex Greenwich introduced two bills, the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 and the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2023. Both bills are anti-women and anti-children. The proposed changes include, firstly, introduction of sex self-ID, allowing anyone to change their legal sex on official documents such as driver’s licence and birth certificate. These documents will no longer represent physical reality; they will show mental self-image. Men will be able to legally identify as women and access female-only spaces including bathrooms, changing rooms, refuges and prisons, undermining the rights and safety of women and girls. Women and children escaping domestic violence will be forced to share emergency accommodation with men. Imagine the additional trauma this will create. A recent Victorian event in Dame Phyllis Frost Correctional Centre shows the danger of these laws. A biological man convicted of violent assaults against women was transferred into a female prison. Female prisoners unsuccessfully petitioned to remove him. A wider public campaign raged for weeks before the transfer was eventually reversed.

Many women in jail have suffered abuse from men that lowers women’s self-esteem and then they go on to drug abuse, crime and illegal behaviour. To TIGA+ campaigners, the mental and physical effect on female inmates from having men in with women seems irrelevant. It appears that many in the TIQA+ community believe women are only to have rights that do not compromise men’s rights.

Secondly, fully deregulated prostitution will remove protections for prostituted persons, mostly women, as well as the wider community. While many may enter this line of work willingly, prostitution is the world’s oldest form of slavery and exploitation. To remove penalty based regulation is an insane idea that will remove the rights of exploited women to enjoy the protection of law. This is despite the global movement to combat, not foster, this abhorrent form of sexual exploitation, violently making women’s bodies commodities.

Thirdly, removing bans on commercial surrogacy if it takes place outside New South Wales, legalising the actions of New South Wales residents using foreign baby farms. This bill will encourage the exploitation and commodification of vulnerable women who will be reduced to the status of a womb for rent, and children reduced to products for sale. This is a modern-day form of human trafficking that’s broadly opposed among human rights defenders. I understand that the homosexual community want to parent a child, and the research on this issue is generally supportive. Yet allowing poor women in Third World countries to be exploited for the benefit of gay couples in the West is an outrage. Women are more than just uterus owners and chest feeders. Women have the right to be protected from exploitation, not to have exploitation enshrined in law.

Fourthly, this bill removes religious protections in current antidiscrimination laws. It will be illegal for religious schools to discriminate against an LGBTIQA+ person, allowing an openly trans person to apply for employment and to prevent discrimination against their employment. Religious belief will no longer be an acceptable employment criteria for religious schools. It seems that people responsible for society’s moral decay see Christianity as resisting that moral decay and therefore they want to destroy Christianity.

Turning to the second bill, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2023, this bill criminalises medical professionals and parents trying to help those suffering with gender dysphoria in a way that doesn’t simply affirm a person’s gender identity. As one constituent, a qualified psychologist, said to me recently, ‘If a child presents to me believing they are a giraffe, I must treat them as though they are a giraffe.’ In the TIQA+ world, this masquerades at health care. This bill ignores mounting medical evidence that the affirmation-only approach is causing gender dysphoria, harming children through irreversible medical transitioning leading to shattered lives filled with regret, regrets the 7NEWS Spotlight show brought to mainstream Australia last Sunday.

Women’s Forum Australia has launched a campaign to protect women, children and our community from these harmful measures. One Nation supports that campaign. Every person deserves respect, equality and care under our laws. Alex Greenwich’s measures are counterproductive to these principles. In 2023, women are becoming invisible handmaidens, servants, with their identity as women being taken from them. One Nation stands opposed to this antihuman agenda. (Time expired)

/3 Comments/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: Rockhampton – Join me on the March for Life.

When: Saturday | 27 May 2023 | 1:30pm – 3:30pm

Where:

Rockhampton Riverside Precinct
Amphitheatre Quay Street
Rockhampton

Contact: Office of Senator Malcolm Roberts | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

/1 Comment/by

I’ll be in Gympie this Saturday from 2pm.

See you there!

/by

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist: The UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People

,

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist. Australian’s should have equality of opportunity no matter what their skin colour is. This is my statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to indicate some concerns I have about this Bill which is both divisive and mostly unnecessary.

Our country is Australia. Our country consists of people from many nations, cultures and religions and from many racial groups providing a rich tapestry of positive contributions to our Australian nation.

What we do not want or need is legislation that picks out a particular cultural group and make laws aimed at that particular cultural group, driving a potentially divisive wedge between aboriginal Australians and other Australians.

It does not matter where a person comes from or what that person’s cultural or racial background is. “I am, you are, we are Australian”, are the words of a well- known theme song.

It’s true. We know that and we do not need legislation that is geared to a “them and us” mentality.

This Bill is intended to affirm into Australian domestic law the contents and intention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

This is a requirement necessary before the UN Declaration provisions become enforceable In Australian law.

Aboriginal Australians, as Australians, already have the same rights as any other Australian right now.

If there are gaps in services available to Indigenous Australians these gaps are due to poverty and remoteness, issues that affect many isolated people across Australia.

It is the failings of successive governments to adequately address health, housing, education and infrastructure that have led to many persons, aboriginal and otherwise, to fall into the poverty gap.

I call on the government to address these issues with priority before considering this Bill which is unnecessary and does nothing more than acknowledging what already is in place for all Australians.

This Bill perpetuates the victimhood of aboriginal people. It places blame on past cultural divides for the current lack of support for aboriginal minorities.

There are many aboriginal people in Australia who have accessed free education, worked hard and prospered as Australians in the broader community. They do not need this Bill.

There are many indigenous Australians who would be offended by the content of this Bill which virtually enshrines a “them and us” mentality.

The most divisive clause in this Bill is clause 7 which throws blame on colonisation for all the ills that prevent their right to develop in accord with their own needs and interests.

All this in the face of facts that include:

 Determined indigenous Native Title claims now cover approximately half of the Australian land mass.

Aboriginal Australians represent approximately 3.5% of Australia’s population

All aboriginal children are entitled to scholarships to continue education through high school and beyond.

Assistance to aboriginal families has now become an enviable but divisive issue within small remote communities where other minorities in similar living conditions are not able to access assistance at the same level.

This is where the true problem lies.

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist, scientifically false, legally questionable, morally condemnable and socially unjust. Simply wrong.

I do not support this Bill.

/by