MEDIA RELEASE



8 March 2016



Victorian school communities should be free to say no to the so-called Safe Schools Coalition, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.



ACL Victorian Director Dan Flynn said the Andrews Government was wrong to force the age-inappropriate sexualised program on school communities and parents when opposition against it was growing.



“It is of deep concern to the Australian Christian Lobby and many Victorian parents that the Government is behaving like big brother and enforcing contested rainbow ideology onto our children,” Mr Flynn said.



Mr Flynn made the comments in response to a media report yesterday in which the Andrews Government first appeared to back away from making the program compulsory before back-peddling and reaffirming its stance to make Safe Schools mandatory in every Victorian high school by 2018.

“School communities that have decided not to align themselves with the program, such as Kyabram P-12 College, should not be forced to do so," Mr Flynn said.



He said bullying children for any reason was unacceptable but the Safe Schools program went way beyond the purview of an anti-bullying program.

“As parents and teachers become better informed they are questioning why their school should have the program, particularly when other anti-bullying programs are already available which already address minority issues,” Mr Flynn said.



“The Victorian Government should immediately withdraw the program from schools, pending its review by the Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham.



“As a significant funder of the program, the Victorian Government has a duty to Victorian taxpayers to hold its own review into Safe Schools.

"Parents expect their children to be safe at school but encouraging boys who identify as girls to use the girls’ bathrooms and share school camp accommodation is not the way to do this," Mr Flynn said.



"Safe Schools tells children they must have access to the Minus 18 website which instructs girls in chest binding so their breasts are flattened and penis tucking for boys.



“We are opposed to making the program mandatory and forcing parents and children to take on this rainbow ideologically driven program.”



ENDS



Media: 02 6259 0431

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Monday 8 September 2014

Liberal Member for Longman Wyatt Roy’s call for a doubling of Australia’s humanitarian intake should be heeded, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

Mr Roy’s call comes a week after the Coalition’s junior partner, The Nationals, voted unanimously in favour of an urgency motion seeking an increase at its Federal Council meeting in Canberra.

ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said 19,500 people had signed ACL’s on-line petition calling for an increase in the wake of the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

“The Government deserves credit for stopping people smuggling, halting the deaths at sea and removing children from detention,” Mr Shelton said.

“But the problem of 51 million displaced people in the world is massive and has been further exacerbated by the persecution of hundreds of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq.

“While Australia’s refugee intake of 13,700 is generous on a per capita basis, much more needs to be done to help suffering people.

“Extraordinary brutality requires extraordinary generosity and Australia, as a relatively wealthy nation, is well-placed to do more.”

Mr Shelton said Mr Roy was right to point out the escalating persecution of Christians in north Africa and the Middle East.

While resettlement of refugees was necessary, the international community should also be ultimately seeking to establish safe havens for Christians and other persecuted religious minorities so that they could return to their homes in Syria and Iraq.

“The Islamists’ goal of purging Christians, Yazidis and other Muslim minorities should not be allowed to stand,” Mr Shelton said.

I really wasn’t sure what to expect from the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.  This was not my usual scene.  FODI has been the home of some strange and disturbing thinking.



In fact the organisers had earlier had to cancel a talk by a Sydney-based Muslim speaker titled Honour Killings Are Morally Justified.



So as I walked into the Sydney Opera House on Saturday I decided to approach the festival with an open yet skeptical mind.



What I was really interested in was a talk by Kajsa Ekman on the topic of surrogacy. Ekman is a Swedish journalist and activist. She’s the author of the book Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, surrogacy and the split self.



Given the recent controversy surrounding surrogacy, including the heart-wrenching story of baby Gammy, I wanted to hear what Ekman had to say.



Here are three things I learned about surrogacy from Ekman’s talk at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.



Surrogacy is baby trading



This position is difficult to refute. The surrogate mother doesn’t get paid for being pregnant. Rather, she is paid for handing over a baby. Money changes hands and the item being purchased is a new born baby. This is the ultimate in the commodification of humanity and is blatant buying and selling of children—a modern form of human trafficking.



Surrogacy exploits women in poverty



Supporters of surrogacy argue that women who are trapped in poverty can change their circumstance through selling the rights to their womb. Singles or couples are prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a child.



In defending the right to commercial surrogacy we are defending the interests of the world’s richest people to purchase a family.



Some people argue that because some women are poor, they should sell their womb in order to survive. Poverty becomes an excuse for exploitation. Is that the kind of world we want? This is commercialising life itself – everything is for sale, while those facilitating the transaction get rich. Surrogacy demeans the unique mother-child bond as women can now solely be used as breeding machines.



Surrogacy violates the rights of children



Surrogacy is too often a bad bargain for both the women and children involved in the process.



The UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child affirms that a child must not, "save in the most exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother", and yet surrogacy does exactly that.  It is deliberate and premeditated.



Australian ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville condemns any deliberate destruction of the child's biological identity. She says:

"It is one matter for children not to know their genetic identity as a result of unintended circumstances. It is quite another matter to deliberately destroy children's links to their biological parents, and especially for society to be complicit in this destruction."

Helping an infertile couple to have a baby of their own is seen by many as a generous and compassionate gesture from a woman who can help. In this way, everyone can have their own children without having to be pregnant, and poor women can earn some extra money. It looks like a win-win situation. But at a closer look, the surrogacy industry is an exploitation of women's bodies and a sophisticated form of baby trade.

ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton appeared at the Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples inquiry today in Melbourne. Below is a copy of his opening statement to the inquiry.



----------------------



[caption id="attachment_32906" align="alignright" width="300"] ACL's Lyle Shelton, far right, prepares to give evidence at senate inquiry[/caption]



Mr Chairman and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present today.



The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages bill is an attempt to further pressure Parliamentarians into capitulating to the same-sex political agenda to change the definition of marriage.



There is no discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples. But for some reason, it is important to some political campaigners to see marriage changed from what it is to something else.



And in doing so, they dismiss concerns about the consequences.



This issue continues to be privileged with extraordinary amounts of Parliamentary time and public resources devoted to it.



A bill to recognise foreign same-sex marriages was defeated in the Senate just last year.



There have been at least 11 attempts at State or Territory level to legislate a new definition of marriage. All have failed. A House of Representatives committee in 2012 declined to support it while this is at least the third Senate inquiry into changing the definition of marriage since 2010. There have been numerous State parliamentary inquiries in the past two years, all followed by votes opposing changing the definition of marriage.



The exception was the ACT Legislative Assembly where nine people voted to set a precedent for the nation, later overturned by the High Court as unconstitutional.



ACL facilitated 42,000 signatures on a submission to this inquiry. There is plenty of grassroots opposition to changing the definition of marriage.



[caption id="attachment_32907" align="alignright" width="225"] ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton (left) gives evidence at the inquiry in Melbourne[/caption]



Such is the politically correct orthodoxy surrounding this issue, few are willing to stand publicly against the political agenda it represents.



No one wants to be accused of prejudice but this is what Australian Marriage Equality asserts is the basis for opposing their political objective is (see page 8 of the AME's Supplementary Submission).



This is of course deeply offensive to Muslims, Christians and Jews and countless other Australians of nominal or no religion who will always believe the truth about marriage and will want to teach it to their children.



We do not have fear or hate in our hearts, we simply have a view about marriage that we wish to see upheld in public policy. We will want to uphold this through the institutions of civil society such as schools, charities and churches that we create and participate in.



The recent Crosby Textor poll mislead people by framing the questions as if no one but the same-sex couple would be affected and that there would be no impact on religious freedom.



Our submission references a florist in Washington State, a photographer in New Mexico and a baker in Colorado who have all faced or are currently facing serious legal sanction because of their conscientious objection to participating in same-sex weddings. There are many more.



When the ACT was legislating last year, the Attorney General Simon Corbel wrote to me to confirm that businesspeople who exercised their conscience in declining to participate in same-sex weddings would be in breach of the anti-discrimination act. I'm happy to provide a copy of the letter.



Australians don't want to see their fellow citizens being fined or perhaps even jailed for acting on their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.



A child such as baby Rhyley lying in a Thai hospital ward, featured on page three of yesterday's Age, is also affected by same-sex marriage ideology.



He is denied both his surrogate mother and his biological mother because the rights of two men to acquire a baby are allowed to trump the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child which says that all children have the right to be raised, wherever possible, by their biological parents.



Sure James and Steve are capable of showing Rhyley love, and I'm sure they will. But neither can be his mum.



Marriage is not just about the emotional needs of adults. The definition of marriage references a biological reality which helps protect the rights of children. That is why governments regulate marriage.



Governments have no interest in other forms of romantic relationships. They are simply none of our business.



Rhyley is denied his human right to a mother not because of tragedy or desertion but because of a deliberate social engineering decision taken by two men.



We have to ask ourselves whether this is ethical. We have to ask ourselves do we want a new definition of marriage to set these practices in cultural cement. The law is of course a teacher.



Our submission references polling which shows 73 per cent of Australians believe wherever possible a child should be raised by her or his biological mother and father.



We can't have it both ways and we desperately need an honest and mature debate about the consequences of changing the definition of marriage.



If we think removing children from their biological parents is fine, then go for same-sex marriage.



But "marriage equality" is a slogan whose meaning should be unpacked.



If equality is the principle, how can we deny other definitions of marriage already recognised legally by other foreign jurisdictions?



What makes the gay lobby's definition morally superior to those defined legally in other jurisdictions and cultures?



One of the many overseas examples of the legal harassment of dissenters to same-sex marriage is the story of Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman who is being sued by the State Attorney General. I table her story in a seven minute electronic format and seek the chair's permission to provide a copy to each committee member.



I challenge anyone to watch her story and continue to uphold the idea that legislating a new definition of marriage has no consequences for freedom



I challenge anyone who thinks there are no consequences to changing the definition of marriage to look a child in the eye and tell her she is not allowed to be raised by her biological mother or father.



Thank you.

A sexualised image at Brisbane’s Royal Queensland show has been covered up after concerned citizens voiced their concerns about children seeing the image.



ACL’s Queensland Director Wendy Francis said she was alerted to the image which was in a children’s section which featured a sexually explicit image of a woman.



Mrs Francis set up a petition on change.org Keep the Ekka suitable for kids - remove explicit sexual imagery.



She petitioned the organisers to remove the image:

“Taking the family to the Brisbane Ekka is a long held tradition and sideshow alley is a fun place for kids with their parents. This imagery is situated in the section of sideshow alley where there are lots of little kids rides. If this image was in an adult workplace it would be deemed as sexual harassment and removed. Our children's innocence should not be compromised by attending the Brisbane Ekka - one of the highlights of the year for many families. Sexual imagery is inappropriate here. Please have these images removed and keep the Ekka as a family friendly place to go.



By Sunday morning, after just 1,059 signatures, the General Manager of Communications for the Ekka Veronica Carew had responded to the change.org petition posting the following message.



“The RNA became aware of this inappropriate image yesterday evening and immediately took steps overnight to have it covered over. This was an unfortunate and isolated oversight which we swiftly moved to have resolved. The RNA appreciates and shares all the concerns raised and is sorry for any offence this image many have caused,” she wrote.



Ms Francis posted in response to the action.



“Grateful to all for your voices which combined have resulted in the Ekka removing the sexualised imagery from sideshow alley. It's a win for our children and for common decency,” ACL’s Wendy Francis said.



This is a great outcome for concerned citizens about the sexualised imagery which children can seek.

Last month the Queensland Government announced it would be introducing laws to penalise advertisers that do not comply with the industry’s code of ethics.



ACL’s Wendy Francis said it’s a step in the right direction but more needs to be done. Specifically Ms Francis wants to see a government avenue for people to use if their complaint to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) is unsuccessful.

Recently the Australian Christian Lobby's Queensland Director Wendy Francis held a forum discussing the state's child protection system following on from the release of the Carmody Report's last year which concluded that the existing system was not ensuring the safety, wellbeing and best interests of children as well as it should. The report made 121 recommendations to improve Queensland’s child protection system. The government has adopted most of the recommendations. The  radio audio below is a 12 minute radio package of some of what was said at the event which was attended by parliamentarians, child advocates and government department representatives.

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Tuesday 15th July 2014

The Australian Christian Lobby is again calling on state governments to introduce laws regulating outdoor advertising in light of a recent Wicked Campers slogan degrading women.

ACL’s spokesperson on the dignity of women Wendy Francis said the latest slogan from the campervan company – which read, “In every princess, there’s a little slut who wants to try it” – undermines a woman’s worth.

“Time and again, we have seen Wicked Campers ignore calls from the Advertising Standards Bureau to keep its slogans in line with community standards.

“Our children and young people will continue to be exposed to such inappropriate content if our governments fail to intervene,” Ms Francis said.

A Sydney mother recently launched an online petition calling on the Brisbane-based company to remove its slogans, after her 11-year-old daughter spotted the latest slogan on a van in the Blue Mountains.

The change.org petition to “Eliminate misogynistic and degrading slogans and imagery” has now reached over 90,000 signatures.

Ms Francis said no parent wants their child to be exposed to material that objectifies or demeans women.

“The sexualisation of our everyday environment is causing an increase in sexual assaults, eating disorders in young children, and depression.

“A report published in the Lancet medical journal earlier this year revealed that incidents of sexual violence against women in Australia is more than double the global average.

“Governments across our nation need to open their eyes to the harm that companies like Wicked Campers are causing against vulnerable members of society,” she said.

In April this year, ACL called on the Queensland Government to introduce outdoor advertising laws to keep the public square in line with community standards.

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Tuesday 15th July 2014

A more nuanced debate about changing the definition of marriage is needed, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

Polling showing support for legislative change fails to ask people about the knock-on effects, ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said today.

"Does the polling ask people if they are comfortable with children being taken from their biological mother or father.

"Are Australians happy for fellow citizens who believe in man-woman marriage to be sued in the courts or driven from their jobs because of their beliefs, as is now happening in other jurisdictions?"

Mr Shelton said it was all well and good to mount emotional arguments about love as Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyohjelm did yesterday.

"But if as a country we decide to support changing the definition of marriage can we all look in the eyes of a child and tell her that she cannot be raised by her biological mother.

"Are we really happy for dissenters to face legal sanction, as has occurred in Colorado, Washington State and New Mexico in the United States?

"We must ask how these consequences improve liberty.

Mr Shelton said Senator Leyonhjelm wanted to deregulate marriage.

"Does that mean he would support 'marriage equality' for 'throuples'? Where does this end?

“There are countries which allow other definitions of marriage such as child marriage and polygamy.

"Should we deregulate these as well? So many questions, so little debate.

"The debate Australia has been having about changing the definition of marriage has been very shallow.

"We need to be careful that we don't get caught up in a popular culture wave that leaves our nation, and most importantly children, with unintended consequences," Mr Shelton said.

ACL supported the removal of discrimination against same-sex couples in 2008 but like the then Labor Government, stopped short at changing the definition of marriage.

Polling conducted for ACL by JWS Research after the last election showed that same-sex marriage was a low order issue for voters.

The Hon Robyn McSweeney is a Liberal member of the Western Australian Legislative Council since 2001, representing the region of South West. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman she discusses the report by the Children's Commissioner looking at the sexualisation of children. Ms McSweeney was on the committee which tabled the report in parliament. Listen to the interview below and read the related blog post on the issue.

The Australian government is looking for existing providers of relationship education or counselling to help deliver the Stronger Relationships trial.



The Stronger Relationships trial is part of the Department of Social Services’ (DSS) Families and Communities Program that seeks to support families and improve children’s wellbeing by providing $200 subsidies for up to 100,000 couples to access relationship education and/or counselling services.



The aim of the trial is to increase the number of couples who participate in education and/or counselling to help strengthen their marriage or relationship. It will run from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.



Couples can register for the trial but both persons must be:

• in a committed relationship;

• Australian citizens, permanent residents or otherwise eligible to receive social security payments in Australia; and

• 18 years or older.

In order to qualify for the $200 subsidy, couples must choose from a service provider listed on the DSS website, www.dss.gov.au/strongerrelationships.



Counsellors and relationship educators can apply to be a service provider if they are existing Family and Relationship Services providers, or a not-for-profit provider that already offers education or counselling services to at least 100 couples per year.



Service providers must ensure that personnel providing counselling and education services possess current membership to a recognised professional institution including, but not limited to:

• the Australian Counselling Association;

• the Australian Register of Counsellors and Psychotherapists;

• the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia;

• the Australian Association of Family Therapy;

• the Australian Psychological Society;

• the Marriage and Relationship Educators’ Association of Australia;

• the Catholic Society for Marriage Education; and

• the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). For the AASW, personnel need only show evidence of eligibility for membership.

Although payment of the education and/or counselling service will remain the responsibility of the couple to the service provider, the couple will receive a $200 reimbursement of the total service fee.



Applications for the trial opened 19 June 2014 and will remain open until 31 March 2015.



For further information about the trial and the application process, read the operational guidelines here.