Parents in the US state of Wisconsin are fighting back against a school policy on gender transition, in defence of their “fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children”.
In legal documents lodged against Madison Metropolitan School District, the concerned parents say educational authorities have implemented a policy enabling “children, of any age, to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent.”
Parents are concerned that the policy “requires all teachers to enable this transition, and then prohibits teachers from communicating with parents about this potentially life-altering choice without the child’s consent”
Upset at the loss of their rights, the litigants have criticized the Madison School District for “directing its teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to the child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever the child’s parents are nearby.”
The District has adopted a policy “designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children’s health and future,” they say.
Parents are also upset as the District has given children colouring books asserting “Everyone has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.”
The case continues.
A Victorian woman who incurred a $5,000 fine for breaching an abortion censorship zone has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
Kathleen Clubb, mother of 13 children, was convicted after providing information to a couple outside an abortion clinic in East Melbourne in 2016 and received the hefty fine.
As part of her appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court, her lawyers argued it could not be proven that Clubb had “communicated in relation to abortion”.
Supreme Court Justice Maree Kennedy disagreed:
"The appellant has chosen to enter the safe access zone - invading the personal space of an unknown couple - armed with material which related to abortion,” the judge determined.
"There was an approach to a young couple, unknown to the appellant, raising an issue of a highly personal nature as they were making their way into an abortion clinic in circumstances where they were likely to already be feeling distressed or highly vulnerable.
"I consider that there was a substantial chance of causing a significant emotional reaction or psychological response."
FamilyVoice State Director Peter Stevens responded to the judgement.
“The problem is not the judiciary but the government that cares as much for free speech as it does for the rights of the unborn.
“The Andrew’s government continues to erode basic freedoms and must be brought to account.”
The UK High Court has brought the police to account for infringing freedom of speech.
The matter arose when a concerned member of the publilc, Harry Miller, posted social media comments about transgenderism.
This prompted a police visit at Miller’s workplace. The police told Miller that although he had not committed a crime, his actions would be recorded as a “hate incident.”
Miller understood he must stop commenting on the subject or face prosecution.
Unwilling to accept the action of police, Miller challenged the matter in court.
“We are heading absolutely towards some Orwellian state and the police are using 1984 as an operating manual and this frightens the life out of me.”
The Court found the police were in the wrong and had infringed Miller’s freedom of expression
Justice Julian Knowles, adjudicating the case, firmly ruled against the constabulary. “I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect,” he said.
The judge said the impact of the police visiting Miller’s workplace “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”.
“To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society,” he said.
Miller described the decision as a watershed moment for liberty.
"The police were wrong to visit my workplace, wrong to ‘check my thinking’” he said.
Miller’s lawyer, Paul Conrathe, said: “It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people's free speech rights on matters of significant controversy.”
Israel Folau has made a remarkable return to rugby league, helping the Catalans Dragons defeat the Castleford Tigers.
The Catalans Dragons are based in France and play in the Super League, which is the highest level professional rugby league competition in the northern part of the world.
Rugby Australia famously sacked Israel in March 2019 after LGBT activists demanded he be punished for sharing his Christian-based view on human sexuality.
As part of a huge outpouring of support for Folau, people who love freedom of speech donated two million dollars to his legal fund.
Folau consequently sued Rugby Australia and eventually reached a confidential settlement.
Despite that result, LGBT activists continue to hound Folau. They want him sacked as a player with the Catalans Dragons - depriving him of the ability to earn a living with his God-given talent.
One rival club sought to further marginalise Folau, by announcing that their game against his team would be named “Pride Day”.
Those who oppose Folau playing rugby claim to support “inclusion”, oblivious to the fact that excluding someone for their religious beliefs is hardly “inclusive”.
House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has demanded venues stop discriminating against the forthcoming Franklin Graham tour of the UK.
The outspoken conservative MP has warned service providers “not to discriminate unlawfully on grounds of religion and belief” in denying Franklin Graham venue hire.
Franklin Graham is due to tour eight cities in the UK this year but LGBT activists are trying to shut down the tour.
Numerous venues have already cancelled on Graham.
“No-platforming is a particularly disagreeable modern trend,” said Rees-Mogg.
“It is a sad truth that many people who tout themselves as being liberal are liberal only about what they like and are very intolerant of the views with which they disagree,” he said.
The comments by Jacob Rees-Mogg responded to a question from MP Fiona Bruce who referred to the Prime Minister’s Christmas message statement that “We stand with Christians everywhere, in solidarity, and will defend your right to practise your faith.”
“Plainly, that was meant to include the UK, so may we have a statement on whether we can really call ourselves a tolerant, inclusive and diverse society that respects freedom of speech, whatever one’s religion or beliefs, if we deny the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association a platform in this country?,” Bruce asked.
Franklin Graham has responded in a Facebook post to the campaign against him speaking, saying that opposition to the Gospel shouldn’t really surprise.
“Jesus warned that it would come,” said Graham.
“As you may know, my eight-city evangelistic tour across the UK has been met with resistance by LGBTQ activists who inaccurately claim that I am homophobic, Islamophobic, and say that I speak hate.
“Anyone who knows me or has heard me speak knows that this really isn’t true—but, I DO preach the TRUTH of the Gospel. Could it be, rather, that these folks are truthophobic or free-speech-ophobic?,” he asked.
FamilyVoice Australia upholds Christian values and the family: permanence of marriage, sanctity of human life, primacy of parenthood and limited government.
Don't miss out on quality research and news that will equip you to face the culture wars.
Join the growing movement of young people daring to be counter-cultural.