ACL calls on Ooh Media to explain censorship of baby advertisement
The Australian Christian Lobby is calling on billboard giant Ooh Media to explain why it will be censoring a billboard that simply depicts a pregnant woman accompanied by a true statement about pregnancy.
Read moreAustralia’s worst abortion laws just got worse
For two nights this week the Legislative Council has had marathon sittings lasting until 4am on Wednesday morning and 2am Friday morning in the Government’s bid to clamp down on pro-life speech or posters within 150 metres of Victorias abortion clinics. This ban extends to public and many private hospitals and all of the 100 plus doctors’ surgeries that administer the abortion drug RU 486.
The debate was dominated by a volley of questions from Coalition & DLP MP’s to Minister Jenny Mikakos regarding the Government’s intentions and the proposed operation of the exclusion zone laws.
It is alarming that the Government is refusing to provide any information to the public on where the zones will be located. Minister Mikakos made a statement that it would not be helpful for the public to know where the clinics that administer RU 486 are located. This demonstrates the uncertainty that surrounds the Bill.
It was pointed out by Inga Peulich MP that Victoria’s Universities have clinics providing RU 486 and therefore “clubs and societies” on campus would be limited in their free speech, especially during Orientation week.
Sensible amendments, designed to make a bad law better, were all defeated. The amendments sought to reduce the zone from 150 metres to 15 metres and reduce the maximum jail term for those who breach the zone, from 12 months to 1 month.
A critical amendment, by Bernie Finn MP, attempting to remove prayer and other forms of religious expression from the free speech ban was unsuccessful.
The wheels were set in motion for these speech censorship laws because the ALP Government denied its MP’s a conscience vote on the issue.
The Andrew’s ALP Government failed to honour the clear provisions in the ALP national rules, applicable since 1984, that guarantee ALP MP’s a conscience vote on abortion.
Sadly, a large number of Coalition members exercised their free vote on the issue to support the draconian laws, mistakenly accepting the false narrative that those who seek to offer alternatives to abortion at abortion clinics, cause harm. In fact, these pro-life counsellors’ compassionate activities usually result in 12 live births every year.
The mothers of these children have not regretted their choice to continue with their pregnancies. One such mother and her four year old daughter were present in Parliament during the debate; hearing that the method by which the young girl’s life was saved, a compassionate conversation, will now be an imprisonable offence.
Due to the votes of the 30 MP’s who approved this Bill, there will be twelve less children around the Christmas table next year. This is indeed a shocking outcome for a vote taken in the middle of the night. It seems unreasonable that the lives of children depend on the votes of MP’s at a time of day when making decisions is difficult.
The Government’s banning of allowing alternatives to abortion, where information is most needed, facilitates a cruel type of domestic violence, where the most vulnerable pay the ultimate price in silence.
Conservative free speech Victorians applaud the courage of the eight MPs who repeatedly voted against the jackboot of Government speech control; Bernie Finn, Inga Peulich, Richard Dalla-Riva, Rachel Carling-Jenkins, Daniel Young, Gordon Rich-Philips, James Purcell & Jeff Bourman.
While a minority group, they represented the views of the majority of correspondents to MP’s on this issue, as was acknowledged by MP’s on both sides of the debate.
This free speech ban is now likely to be tested in the High Court in the likely scenario that a compassionate pro-life advocate seeks a consensual conversation with a young mother outside of one of Victorias abortion clinics.
The debate was dominated by a volley of questions from Coalition & DLP MP’s to Minister Jenny Mikakos regarding the Government’s intentions and the proposed operation of the exclusion zone laws.
It is alarming that the Government is refusing to provide any information to the public on where the zones will be located. Minister Mikakos made a statement that it would not be helpful for the public to know where the clinics that administer RU 486 are located. This demonstrates the uncertainty that surrounds the Bill.
It was pointed out by Inga Peulich MP that Victoria’s Universities have clinics providing RU 486 and therefore “clubs and societies” on campus would be limited in their free speech, especially during Orientation week.
Sensible amendments, designed to make a bad law better, were all defeated. The amendments sought to reduce the zone from 150 metres to 15 metres and reduce the maximum jail term for those who breach the zone, from 12 months to 1 month.
A critical amendment, by Bernie Finn MP, attempting to remove prayer and other forms of religious expression from the free speech ban was unsuccessful.
The wheels were set in motion for these speech censorship laws because the ALP Government denied its MP’s a conscience vote on the issue.
The Andrew’s ALP Government failed to honour the clear provisions in the ALP national rules, applicable since 1984, that guarantee ALP MP’s a conscience vote on abortion.
Sadly, a large number of Coalition members exercised their free vote on the issue to support the draconian laws, mistakenly accepting the false narrative that those who seek to offer alternatives to abortion at abortion clinics, cause harm. In fact, these pro-life counsellors’ compassionate activities usually result in 12 live births every year.
The mothers of these children have not regretted their choice to continue with their pregnancies. One such mother and her four year old daughter were present in Parliament during the debate; hearing that the method by which the young girl’s life was saved, a compassionate conversation, will now be an imprisonable offence.
Due to the votes of the 30 MP’s who approved this Bill, there will be twelve less children around the Christmas table next year. This is indeed a shocking outcome for a vote taken in the middle of the night. It seems unreasonable that the lives of children depend on the votes of MP’s at a time of day when making decisions is difficult.
The Government’s banning of allowing alternatives to abortion, where information is most needed, facilitates a cruel type of domestic violence, where the most vulnerable pay the ultimate price in silence.
Conservative free speech Victorians applaud the courage of the eight MPs who repeatedly voted against the jackboot of Government speech control; Bernie Finn, Inga Peulich, Richard Dalla-Riva, Rachel Carling-Jenkins, Daniel Young, Gordon Rich-Philips, James Purcell & Jeff Bourman.
While a minority group, they represented the views of the majority of correspondents to MP’s on this issue, as was acknowledged by MP’s on both sides of the debate.
This free speech ban is now likely to be tested in the High Court in the likely scenario that a compassionate pro-life advocate seeks a consensual conversation with a young mother outside of one of Victorias abortion clinics.
ACL's Lyle Shelton on govt's decision to drop changes to Racial Discrimination Act
Lyle Shelton is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman he comments on the government's decision to drop proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Mr Shelton said the Racial Discrimination Act has a low threshold for triggering legal proceedings and believes it's important for a free and democratic society to have robust discussions.
Free speech debate is only just beginning
The last federal Parliamentary sitting week in March was dominated by fierce debate about free speech and racial vilification.Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate someone because of their race.
The Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt ran foul of these laws and was fined, prompting the then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to promise to repeal them.
No thinking person, and especially Christians, wants racism.
The question is, how do you strike the right balance between free speech and creating a culture of respect for all people?
The human rights lobby believes strong legal protections are needed against racist elements in the Australian community and wants the laws unchanged.
I tend to think the Australian community is far more tolerant than some give them credit for.
The Attorney General George Brandis has argued that free speech is a higher value and is proposing to repeal Section 18C.
However, he proposes to make it against the law to vilify or intimidate people on the basis of race where vilify means to incite hatred against a person or group and intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm.
While still subjective, that seems to be a more appropriate place to strike the balance.
But what of non-race-based claims of vilification?
Some people claim the statements: "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" and "that wherever possible, children deserve their mother and father" to be deeply offensive, humiliating and even 'hateful'.
Some politicians have even said there is "no place in Australia" for these views.
It seems the debate about free speech and freedom of religion in Australia is only just beginning.
ACL's MD talks about the value of free speech
Lyle Shelton is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman he talks about why free speech is important for a well-functioning society. Debate about free speech and the limits of it has been a matter of public discussion in the context of an inquiry into whether section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should be amended. Columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching the Act in 2011 because of his comments he made about light-skinned aboriginal people. Mr Shelton believes some parts of the Racial Discrimination Act could be amended to ensure free speech.
MR: PM’s withdrawal from ACL conference a blow to constituency, win for aggressive gay activists
MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday 6 September 2012
The Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw from the Australian Christian Lobby’s national conference is based on inaccurate media reporting and misrepresentation by gay activists.
Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Jim Wallace said the decision would come as a deep disappointment to Australia’s Christian constituency.
“This is a victory for the relentless campaign of demonization against anyone who would challenge the gay activists’ agenda in the public square.”
Mr Wallace said at no stage did he say that “smoking is healthier than gay marriage”, as reported by some media.
“What I did say is that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are different and have different health consequences. They should not be packaged the same way as marriage because, as just one of many reasons, they are different.
“If we warn against smoking because it carries health dangers, we should also be warning young people in particular about activity which clearly carries health risks,” Mr Wallace said.
“The experience in places like Massachusetts is that it is very difficult to have this conversation where the lifestyle is held to be the equal of marriage.”
Mr Wallace rejected the characterisation of himself and the ACL as heartless.
“This is a blow to free speech of which there will be even greater pressure if the definition of marriage is changed,” Mr Wallace said.
“It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has acted so hastily on the basis of misreporting and false information from gay activists.”
Thursday 6 September 2012
The Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw from the Australian Christian Lobby’s national conference is based on inaccurate media reporting and misrepresentation by gay activists.
Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Jim Wallace said the decision would come as a deep disappointment to Australia’s Christian constituency.
“This is a victory for the relentless campaign of demonization against anyone who would challenge the gay activists’ agenda in the public square.”
Mr Wallace said at no stage did he say that “smoking is healthier than gay marriage”, as reported by some media.
“What I did say is that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are different and have different health consequences. They should not be packaged the same way as marriage because, as just one of many reasons, they are different.
“If we warn against smoking because it carries health dangers, we should also be warning young people in particular about activity which clearly carries health risks,” Mr Wallace said.
“The experience in places like Massachusetts is that it is very difficult to have this conversation where the lifestyle is held to be the equal of marriage.”
Mr Wallace rejected the characterisation of himself and the ACL as heartless.
“This is a blow to free speech of which there will be even greater pressure if the definition of marriage is changed,” Mr Wallace said.
“It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has acted so hastily on the basis of misreporting and false information from gay activists.”