News

pregnant

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.”

Rainbow police car

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 2nd version

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”.

Franklin Graham

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.

SenatorSilk2 800

Abortion would be treated as homicide under legislation being pushed in the US state of Oklahoma.

Senator Joseph Silk, author of Senate Bill 13, told news station Coco 5 that his Senate Bill 13 is an equal protection bill.

“[It] finds life as being at the moment of conception and offers life equal protection under the law and therefore classifies any intentional killing of unborn children as homicide,” said Republican Senator Silk.

“A couple of deals, I mean, people ask for the rape and incest exception.  There is not that because we wanted it to be an equal bill. 

“Rape and incest are horrible things but you don’t murder a child because of the crimes of the father and mother. The medical exception there, it’s not specifically outlined, but in the bill, the language of the bill it does not prevent a doctor from performing basic medical triage.  It just says a physician needs to exhaust all his resources to treat both lives equally. If he is not able to save both mom and mother [sic] obviously he will not be charged with murder whatsoever.”

A fellow Oklahoma Senate Republican, Greg Treat said he did not support the legislation:

“I agree with abolishing abortion.  If I thought that Senate Bill 13 would save a single human life, I would be on board fully.  I am still of the mind that it is fatally flawed,” said Senator Treat.

But Senator Silk said that he did not agree with Senator Treat’s position.

“We’ve had discussions, where he thinks it’s fatally flawed is, Senator Treat does not believe the state of Oklahoma has the authority to essentially enact this legislation because of the Roe v Wade opinion, which we just disagree on that,” said Senator Silk.

“And I have my basing off of slavery.  At one point the Supreme Court said salves were private property and had no rights and we have rectified that.

“…so the federal government is limited and the Supreme Court offers opinions and they are not all powerful.  And the state of Oklahoma does have the right to do it and we just have different opinions on that,” he added.

Asked if the idea is to get the matter before the Supreme Court [to overturn Roe v Wade], Silk responded:

“You know, that’s one idea. And so there’s some language in the bill.  I’m of the opinion that the state needs to just enact the legislation and the government needs to uphold the constitution and basically stop killing unborn children.  However, there is a thought that if you were to take this legislation and send it all the way up to the Supreme Court, it would overturn Roe v Wade. So there’s two different ways of thinking.  But that is, a lot of supporters actually want to see Senate Bill 13 be the bill that overturns Roe v Wade.”

Senator Silk said that he is not a fan of an alternative legislative proposal, House Bill 1182.

“I view unborn children as humans just like you and I are.  House Bill 1182, you know, at the most it takes doctor’s licenses away for a year and there’s a $500 fine for murdering a human child.” 

Senator Silk was asked about a viewer’s question which read:

Do you identify as a female? Are you able to carry a nine-month pregnancy? No. Ok.  Then how about you go author a bill that can pertain to you and stop playing God.

But Senator Silk shut down the logical fallacy of the argument:

 “I’m a legislator, I’m not a child.  But we write laws and pass laws and vote on laws pertaining to children.  And that’s exactly what this bill is.  We’re talking about a living human being and wanting to protect it from murder, and so whether you’re a male or female it does not matter whatsoever.  You are trying to protect innocent children.

Senator Sillk was also asked about the issue and rape, how it was traumatic, and had it put to him that he was mixing the issue of church and state.

But Senator Silk calmly responded that it comes down to people having to decide whether an unborn child is a living human being that deserves protection or is it not.

“If you believe a child needs to be murdered when it is conceived in rape, you will have to adjust your standards a lot on who deserves protection and what innocent children are allowed to be murdered and which ones aren’t.  I am of the opinion, again those are horrible atrocities when they happen, however it is still a human life and it still deserves protection,” he said.